Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jason Quinn 2

Username:	Jason Quinn User groups:	autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Mar 04, 2004 00:29:33 Unique pages edited:	12,713 Average edits per page:	1.56 Live edits:	18,909 Deleted edits:	891 Total edits (including deleted):	19,800

Namespace Totals

Article	13967	73.86% Talk	927	4.90% User	799	4.23% User talk	852	4.51% Wikipedia	692	3.66% Wikipedia talk	366	1.94% File	16	0.08% File talk	12	0.06% MediaWiki talk	25	0.13% Template	352	1.86% Template talk	143	0.76% Help	8	0.04% Help talk	38	0.20% Category	654	3.46% Category talk	54	0.29% Portal	1	0.01% Portal talk	3	0.02%

Month counts

2004/03	43	2004/04	11	2004/05	17	2004/06	0	2004/07	2	2004/08	0	2004/09	0	2004/10	0	2004/11	13	2004/12	0	2005/01	11	2005/02	3	2005/03	8	2005/04	13	2005/05	5	2005/06	20	2005/07	14	2005/08	15	2005/09	17	2005/10	9	2005/11	4	2005/12	0	2006/01	16	2006/02	15	2006/03	4	2006/04	22	2006/05	22	2006/06	17	2006/07	17	2006/08	1	2006/09	25	2006/10	10	2006/11	3	2006/12	16	2007/01	14	2007/02	4	2007/03	64	2007/04	190	2007/05	419	2007/06	318	2007/07	36	2007/08	42	2007/09	73	2007/10	153	2007/11	0	2007/12	5	2008/01	317	2008/02	797	2008/03	263	2008/04	21	2008/05	151	2008/06	78	2008/07	218	2008/08	158	2008/09	48	2008/10	59	2008/11	38	2008/12	325	2009/01	330	2009/02	192	2009/03	230	2009/04	13	2009/05	72	2009/06	115	2009/07	167	2009/08	69	2009/09	91	2009/10	71	2009/11	391	2009/12	377	2010/01	344	2010/02	266	2010/03	335	2010/04	538	2010/05	551	2010/06	307	2010/07	78	2010/08	143	2010/09	542	2010/10	626	2010/11	389	2010/12	266	2011/01	129	2011/02	383	2011/03	300	2011/04	251	2011/05	157	2011/06	238	2011/07	411	2011/08	313	2011/09	584	2011/10	153	2011/11	16	2011/12	7	2012/01	69	2012/02	1165	2012/03	854	2012/04	337	2012/05	18	2012/06	187	2012/07	244	2012/08	793	2012/09	440	2012/10	452	2012/11	336	2012/12	234	2013/01	172

Top edited pages

Article 105 - Type_O_Negative 64 - Chebyshev's_inequality 51 - Canon_EOS_flash_system 45 - The_Gambler_(TV_movie_series) 37 - Juggling 26 - Body_integrity_identity_disorder 23 - Alaunt 22 - Santiago 20 - Qualia 20 - Relative_scalar

Talk 30 - Type_O_Negative 25 - Tensor_density 17 - Main_Page 11 - Ronnie_Coleman 11 - Peter_Steele 9 - Tuba 8 - NetHack 6 - Database_normalization 6 - Second-order_logic 6 - Alphabet_(computer_science)

User 146 - Jason_Quinn 43 - Jason_Quinn/NPOV_is_a_problem_for_images 8 - Jason_Quinn/sandbox 6 - Math-biographies 6 - Jason_Quinn/The_"Your_edits_will_just_get_reverted... 5 - Trilliumz/Category:_Hippie_films 4 - Jason_Quinn/noflaggedrevisions 3 - Jacksisco 3 - Drew_R._Smith/Goldfish 3 - Tas45/TBR1

User talk 67 - Jason_Quinn 14 - MBisanz 10 - Jacksisco 9 - Jlhcpa 9 - Koavf/Archive037 7 - KFChayer 7 - Toothis 6 - Magioladitis 5 - WikiDocster 5 - Joker_13

Wikipedia 83 - Village_pump_(technical) 71 - Typo_Team 44 - Village_pump_(proposals) 30 - Adopt-a-typo 29 - Typo_Team/works_completed 24 - RefToolbar 19 - Adopt-a-typo/MOS:APPENDIX_headings 18 - Village_pump_(policy) 14 - Requests_for_adminship/Jason_Quinn 13 - Requests_for_page_protection

Wikipedia talk 34 - Typo_Team 22 - Manual_of_Style/Layout 15 - RefToolbar 13 - Article_Feedback_Tool 10 - Pending_changes 9 - Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-10/Opinion_essay 9 - Editor_engagement 9 - AutoWikiBrowser 8 - RefToolbar/1.0 8 - Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers

File 2 - Lightning_bryce.jpg 2 - Henson-William_04.jpg 2 - Commemorative_plaque_on_Otto_Struve_telescope.jpg 1 - Nambassa_registered_trademark.jpg 1 - 80_Indiana_Regiment.jpg 1 - Rochester_Michigan_Grain_Elevator_Barn.JPG 1 - Solid_Steel_logo.jpg 1 - Bulgarian_Academy_of_Sciences_logo.jpg 1 - Independence_Hall_(Israel).jpg 1 - Thinornis_rubricollis_Bruny_Island.jpg

File talk 4 - Lightning_bryce.jpg 3 - Beijing_science_and_technology_museum_main_hall_14... 2 - Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_p... 1 - Desargues_theorem.svg 1 - C17_aircraft_alt.jpg 1 - SensorSizes.png

MediaWiki talk 11 - Wikimedia-copyrightwarning 8 - RefToolbar.js 5 - Common.js 1 - RefToolbarLocal.js

Template 64 - Cite_within 29 - Cite_book/doc 25 - Kim_Jong-il_family 12 - Typo_Team_News 8 - US-political-party-by-state-category-description 7 - Compound_structures_of_skull 7 - Adopt-a-typo 6 - Airports_by_country_category_description 5 - Cite_journal/doc 4 - Cite_isbn/978020189683

Template talk 12 - Kim_Jong-il_family 9 - US_officer_ranks 8 - Cite_book 7 - Cite_journal 5 - Uncategorized_stub 5 - Userspace_draft 4 - MacTutor 4 - Link_GA 4 - Authority_control 4 - Coord

Help 2 - Userspace_draft 1 - HTML_in_wikitext 1 - Contents/Advanced_Help_Draft 1 - Permanent_link 1 - Citation_tools 1 - Archiving_a_talk_page 1 - Citation_Style_1

Help talk 31 - Citation_Style_1 4 - Template 2 - Searching 1 - Section

Category 6 - Solar_observatories 6 - Film_critics_associations 5 - Airports_in_Ireland 4 - Airports_in_the_Czech_Republic 4 - Music_magazines 4 - Penthouse_Pets_of_the_Year 4 - Film_critics 4 - American_female_singers 4 - Sheep's-milk_cheeses 3 - British_film_critics_associations

Category talk 6 - Highest_points_of_U.S._states 3 - Music_journals 3 - Fictional_cyborgs 3 - Astronomical_asterisms 3 - Pages_containing_cite_templates_with_deprecated_pa... 2 - 120_film_cameras 2 - American_sopranos 2 - K-1_events 2 - Kingfishers 2 - Disambiguation_pages

Portal 1 - Trains/Anniversaries/January_1/More

Portal talk 2 - Mississippi 1 - Children's_literature

Reliability, sourcing, and referencing issues
Moved for accessibility. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 08:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Seneca Caverns (West Virginia) lacks reliable sources
 * Crotaphion lacks sources
 * Sangaree (film) contains an unreliable source (IMDb) and another reference that may lack context to indicate the subject's notability
 * Yamada: The Samurai of Ayothaya contains an unreliable source
 * Kimberly Harper lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Olympic Forest Park includes a solitary, blog-like reference, which nonetheless appears to have editorial policies governing copyright, etc.
 * Pickering series lacks directly accessible sources, although the external link does reference some pertinent articles
 * Tom Noddy just contains references of dubious quality
 * Astylus trifasciatus lacks citations, even to the authority on the species, namely Félix Édouard Guérin-Méneville
 * Apoquindo Waterfall lacks sources
 * Andreas Airfield lacks sources
 * West Virginia Zoo lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Modine-Benstead Observatory lacks independent and reliable sources
 * CLSQL lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Huairou Reservoir lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Huairou Solar Observing Station lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Solar observatory requires additional references
 * Domino Soda Fountain lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Support (structure) lacks sources and resembles a dictionary definition
 * Acaena magellanica just contains an invalid link
 * Wildlife of Chile is an article with significant potential on national fauna, but lacks sources
 * Salar de Pedernales lacks sources
 * Doite has had multiple issues listed since February 2012
 * Museo de Arte Contemporáneo (Santiago, Chile) lacks significant coverage of the subject
 * Cerro Provincia certainly lacks citations
 * Pottstown Senior High School lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Pottsgrove High School lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Woodbridge High School (Bridgeville, Delaware) lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Jefferson High School (Edgewater, Colorado) lacks independent and reliable sources
 * George Washington Community High School lacks independent and reliable sources
 * Sharp map lacks sources
 * Olivetti M19 lacks reliable sources
 * Unitron contains a solitary, unreliable source
 * Gravitation (book) just includes a self-reference
 * IRAF lacks independent sources


 * Your assertion that I don't understand WP:V and WP:IRS because of these stubs does not follow. I find it strange you did not also mention WP:N since we are talking about articles I created. As for references, we are in total agreement: more and better references would improve these stubs. No controversy here. In fact, a few of these could probably be merged and maybe even a couple deleted. Your leap from "[these articles were created]" to "[user cannot be trusted with the tools]" is a non-sequitur that makes me curious about your interpretation of the policies. You appear to have internalized Wikipedia:Verifiability into some of form of "Wikipedia:OnlyVerified" and seem to imply that admins must not create articles of anything less than something like GA quality. That seems off to me. I don't know if you are a strict deletionist or not but it seems like you may be. I'd described myself as neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist but somewhere in the middle. Ultimately, I think Wikipedia's goal is to be this, not this. And just like a tree, individual articles too grow from humble beginnings; they evolve. Expecting them to spring forth from the ground capable of passing GA or FA review is unreasonable. Until now, there's basically been no contention about this material. If there were, then I would fall back on V and IRS to resolve the dispute. It would be quite easy to improve many of these articles to start class or better. And I'll do some of that at some point since that you've reminded me of them. I find your "adamant" oppose making a mountain out of a molehole. The disagreement arises not because I don't understand the policies but because we probably to interpret them differently. That would require a large amount of discussion about policy to even attempt to resolve. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In criticising me on the presumption that I am a 'deletionist', that I have a ridiculous interpretation of Wikipedia's policies, or that my logic is impaired, you seem to present a raft of spurious arguments in your defence. A reasonable approach is to address the outstanding issues with these articles directly, not to concentrate on castigating others whenever they demonstrate imperfections, mistakes, or other shortcomings in your contributions. This is not a matter of subjective interpretation, but simply the implementation of a basic standard, namely where the content we include is verifiable directly, thus providing the reader with material that is accurate and trustworthy:


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (WP:BURDEN)


 * After reading your response and your articles, you appear to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the importance of verification, a fundamental policy that I would expect any administrator to appreciate and implement. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 17:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC).


 * I don't think my arguments are spurious. I think they identify how and why we have differences. You again seem to imply the policy is for some sort of mandatory "verification" instead of "verifiability"; so I repeat that you seem to interpret policy different than me. I think my way is more proper otherwise I wouldn't hold the view. Under your view I don't see how stubs or start articles can even exist on Wikipedia. They are rife with uncontested, unverified statements. Given that you believe this is against policy, it stands to reason that you think it should be deleted. The same would go with many tagged articles. Hence you appear to be a deletionist. That seems fair to conclude, and if it's false, then you've left me puzzled. If you wish to augment my comments to conclude I think your comments are "ridiculous", that is your prerogative but I did agree with you that the articles would benefit from more and improved sources. We are meet halfway. I don't see how you go from "needing better refs" to "I don't understand V and RS" and that ultimately I cannot be trusted with the tools. [This is especially ironic to me because I spend most of my time adding and improving sources for articles.] Half of the items in the list would be easily improved, some simply by copying the refs from other language Wikipedias. Basically I view your list as a list of items that could be worked on... some even deleted if RS cannot be found... but not a list that disqualifies somebody from being trust to be an admin, which you seem to think. You state that you think that list shows I don't know V or RS, but I think that's an unqualified leap. There's a good chance that we have different editing styles, which have shaped our interpretations of the same policies' text. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I should probably give my view on this, as I have opposed over it. (This is Mr. Stradivarius using his alternative account, in case anyone was wondering.) I agree with Mephistophelian in that I think the sourcing of these stubs shows a misunderstanding of WP:V. The passage from the policy that I'm concerned about is "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The key part of this is "likely to be challenged". There is plenty of unsourced material in these stubs that a reasonable person might challenge. Picking the most recent one, Seneca Caverns (West Virginia), you have written "It was used for ceremonies of Seneca Indians, an Iroquois confederacy tribe and is commercially used since 1930." Looking at the second one, Crotaphion, you have written "The crotaphion refers to two points on the skull at the tips of the greater wing of sphenoid bone." These do not sound like obvious facts to me. I am totally fine with not including citations for material that is not likely to be challenged, and I am a fan of WP:BLUE, but WP:V is pretty clear that statements like the ones I mentioned need to be cited. I'm not sure whether you were unaware of the "likely to be challenged" clause, had forgotten about it, or whether you thought that the statements in those stubs genuinely weren't likely to be challenged, but in my opinion these stubs demonstrate a misunderstanding of the policy. Sorry to sound harsh, but I hope this helps you understand my oppose. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 01:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jason that you are making mountains out of molehills Mephist, I'm sure going through your contribs one could find you added material to articles without references, etc. You appear to be acting as if becoming a sysop is some godly thing when in reality (and imo) it's not, it's just access to some tools. —   dain -  talk   17:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not attempt to "resolve" policy issues, Jason, instead start right away improving the quality and the sourcing of your articles/stubs. We don't need any admins who try to envolve other users in neverending debates, we need them to do real work. Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out quantity of articles and referencing said articles does not determine how 'good' a user is at all, or reflect at all on how they would handle the admin flag. I know many an admin that have written far less content than this that have had successful RFAs.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 20:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To write less content would be much better than to write bad content. Now, I wonder why it should be necessary to badger the opposers, instead of addressing the issues raised by Mephistophelian... Kraxler (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by "bad" content? 28bytes (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad content is, for example, unsourced content and non-notable content. It is "bad" because it requires an army of admins, with a terrible backlog, to sort out what needs to be fixed and what needs to be deleted. Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mephistophelian's comment, above, is a marvel of selective quoting. What WP:BURDEN says is this:
 * Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.
 * Trying to spin a policy that specifically addresses sourcing disputes (the section even begins "any material challenged or likely to be challenged...") into a requirement for ultra-strict sourcing for stub articles is simply wrong. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it pretty rich that a three-year user, with less than 30% of their edit count to mainspace (Oct 2012: mainspace: 862 edits, talk: 7917 edits - what's that about?), and zero or virtually zero activity in 21 out of those 36 months, is taking it upon him/herself to lecture a nearly nine-year user, with 74% edits to mainspace, on how article policy works. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   19:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Concentrating on my contributions as above implies undue weight towards certain volunteers and statistics, that the value of an editor or the significance of their arguments is determinable largely by the date of their account registration. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 02:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC).
 * I disagree with Meph, but bringing up credentials in an argument is a no-go, Hex. I, for instance, am only a sliver better with an absolute mainspace edit percentage of 31%, but I nonetheless somehow manage to be a primary content contributor of some peerage. Res Mar 04:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've clicked two random links in M's list, Seneca Caverns (West Virginia) and Wildlife of Chile, and found that JQ edited only the first or first few revisions there, and. The idea that anyone's supposed to publicly criticize him for wanting to be an admin while leaving those stubs 'unattended' is ludicrous; nobody's supposed to be held up to such a standard because everyone would fail it. This is ridiculous and, frankly, disruptive. Indeed, if I were to apply the same kind of overreaching logic, I'd now accuse you that - because you were able to post something like this about another editor - that you probably never read WP:BLP and therefore you should not be involved in anything related to living people. Or something. I see now why many people have become so hostile to the RfA process - this is completely pointless. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To suggest that I am being disruptive in commenting on the lack of sources or reliable sources in another editor’s contributions overlooks the following provision in the behavioural guidelines on disruptive editing:


 * "A disruptive editor is an editor who:


 * Cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." (WP:DE)


 * Given that the inclusion of unverified material is potentially disruptive, and that resolving issues of verification does improve the encyclopaedia, the above criticism directed at me seems wholly unjustifiable. Mephistophelian / discuss / email 11:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Do you honestly fail to understand the meaning of the word "potentially" in that statement? The difference is very significant. It's supposed to be at least as significant enough as to give you pause before you decide to censure the person for allegedly having so little clue about the verifiability policy that making them an admin would be a risk so unacceptable that you in turn have to adamantly oppose that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with "adamantly" being totally unnecessary  Jebus989 ✰ 13:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The section of the guideline WP:DE referred to above is not an exhaustive list of the only officially-recognized forms of disruption, nor will it ever be, because that concept does not exist. Wikilawyering on an RfA certainly has the potential to be disruptive. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   14:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is patently unfair. Any editor can raise any issue that they believe is germane to a discussion and doing that is definitely not disruptive. It becomes disruptive only when the editor behaves tendentiously, and Mephistophelian has not even come close to that. I don't agree with his conclusions, and actually agree with the "everyone would fail it" view, but it is important to recognize that editors can differ over what is important and what is not and we must respect those differences. In particular, accusing an editor making a good faith oppose, adamantly or not, of being disruptive is a bad idea. Each time that that happens, the RfA process becomes less effective. Jason Quinn has effectively answered Mephistophelian's concerns, Mephistophelian does not agree, leave it at that.--regentspark (comment) 14:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The section below by Kraxler, which Bishonen has had to move to this talk page, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's not unfair - you shouldn't get to dis people on largely unrelated matters just because they had the audacity to apply for adminship. Admins don't get a sacred right to enforce content policy the way they personally see fit, so the inference that just because they've created stubs with less than stellar verifiability, we're suddenly going to have an admin that lets egregious violations of the verifiability policy slide - simply makes no sense, because that's plain non sequitur, and because others wouldn't let that slide. The whole notion is bizarre - either we're all allowed to make stubs, or we aren't - if someone doesn't like people creating stubs - work on that, over there, don't throw rocks at this unrelated process. This isn't a matter of the quality of argument, it's a matter of applicability of the argument. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RegentsPark nails it so well that I already feel silly for wasting my time saying the same thing, and wasting your time reading it. But seeing, yet again, the all too common tactic of equating "disruptive" with "opposes someone I support, and refuses to back down and let me have the last word when I disagree", I wanted to second RP's point that playing this game - turning every disagreement into mutual accusations of policy violation - contributes much more to why "RFA sucks" (and, indeed, why "WP sucks") than people emphatically opposing does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And now Mephistophelian is vanishing. Mephistophelian, please don't leave just because of this! The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs)  17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All the articles in Mephistophelian's list have problems, falling somewhat short of minimal requirements under the guidelines. To criticize an editor for raising legitimate issues during an RfA, is certainly disruptive. The question is, why Jason Quinn did not at once fix at least a few articles, possibly promising to take care of the others later, and thus show a positive attitude? Instead, he states in answer 1 that he wants adminship out of boredom, then says effectively that he can throw any tidbits of info about (create questionable stubs) without bothering about the guidelines, and a badgering squad takes care of the opposers (with comments like "your vote should be neutral"). I'd like to point out that RfA is not the poll for Mr./Miss Congeniality, it's a scrutiny of the qualification of a candidate for a specified "office". Now it looks like we will gain a "silent admin" (one who was just bored and wanted the tools to show them off, but professes not wanting to use them) and we will lose a content editor who knows what he's doing and what is required under the guidelines. Does anybody think that that is a good bargain? Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's really no need for kind of drama. Floquenbeam and regentpark's comments should be the end of it  Jebus989 ✰ 19:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There was really no need to mob an experienced editor away. By the way, I don't worry about being badgered, I can handle it. I'll stick around for the time being... Kraxler (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't you see the double standard here? You feel that JC should have appeased the bad argument by spending more time fixing what doesn't need to be fixed in relation to this process, thereby showing his good faith, but you don't feel that commenters on his bid should spend more time making an actual list of questionable stubs (as opposed to just plain old stubs), thereby showing their own good faith? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"Additional question" + thread moved from the main page

 * The question below, which discusses a post in the discussion above was posted by Kraxler on the main page, in the guise of "Additional question from Kraxler". Predictably, this strange placement led to even more discussion on the main page. Kraxler, this is exactly what the discussion page is for. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC).

16. - In a discussion on the talk page here you say: "Your assertion that I don't understand WP:V and WP:IRS because of these stubs does not follow." Can you explain how creating articles/stubs without any sources/references shows that you understand WP:V and WP:IRS?
 * Additional question from Kraxler
 * A: In regards to article creation, I prefer to mention the WP:N guideline because it offers more direct advice than WP:IRS and WP:V. WP:N does not require articles to be fully sourced before creation. It only requires that they can be sourced by IRS. This is equivalent to noting that it is not a requirement by WP:V that material be verified but verifiable, an important distinction. If any of those stubs' material became contentious and reliable sources were unable to be found for them, I am perfectly fine with the contentious material being removed, or the entire stub deleted if no sources can be found. If article creation were interpreted as requiring full high-quality references for every statement, even uncontentious material, then Wikipedia would have stagnated long ago. In general, I don't see how expecting articles to pop ab initio into high quality form is congruent with the spirit of any wiki. Having policies and guidelines of V, N, and RS that require editors &mdash; admin or not &mdash; to create only high-quality, fully referenced articles would have been an extremely bad idea. Luckily, these are not the V, N, and IRS policies and guidelines that we actually have. As for Mephistophelian's list, many of the entries do have references leaving only a small number "without any source/references" as per your question. As for those, some of them were created during the process of larger editing work (such as category sorting) and I just simply forgot about them or had intended to return to them in the future. They are works in process albeit very slow ones. I think this more or less answers your concern.
 * Comment - Your argument is fallacious. I don't expect everybody to create high-quality content; I expect an admin candidate to take minimal care, and edit according to minimal standards under the guidelines. Nevertheless, your debating skills might come in handy at AfD and the like... Kraxler (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply If you explicitly state what kind of fallacy you believe I am making, what conclusion you think I falsely drew, and which premises were involved, it would help me understand what you mean and how to respond. I understand how to read and write formal arguments, so if you do too, that would help alleviate ambiguity and facilitate communication. Ironically, I feel that that the inductive fallacy of cherry picking is being used against me in regards to these stubs. In any case, I have written up formal deductive versions of the arguments I think my opponents are using against me regarding these stubs. They are valid arguments but not sound because I question some of the premises being used (interpretations as I have stated above and elsewhere). My answers to this question and other concerns have largely been to point that out. I am a slave to logic and reasoning, so I take discoveries of fallacies in my reasoning quite serious and would wish to remedy it quickly. I do not think this is occurring here though and believe that we could resolve the dispute through more dialog that clarifies our stances. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Bishonen - I just wanted an answer to my question. I got it, and commented briefly. I had no intention to discuss this further.
 * Re Jason - As a fellow mathematician, I will go out of my way (see above) to debate this futher, sorry, but your "reasoning" is full of holes:
 * The very first sentence at WP:V is "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. So you see that to distinguish "verifiable" and "verified" is fallacious, since the reader can not check anything if there is no source at all. The content can not be verified, and nobody knows if the creator verified anything, it might be WP:OR.
 * I asked about WP:V and WP:IRS, and you answer that you prefer to talk about WP:N. That is fallacious because if anybody asks me about my health and I say I prefer to talk about my financial situation, I am not answering the question, but changing the subject.
 * You say: "WP:N does not require articles to be fully sourced before creation." Frankly, that's absurd. How could anything be sourced before creation? Before an article is created, there is no article, ergo, no article - no sources.
 * Then you rant on for three sentences about that a wiki should not require the creation of only high-quality content. Nobody ever said so. Nobody, not even Mephistophelian, asked you to create only super-high-quality content, so there is no need to apply a fallacious "other-extreme-defence", i.e. somebody who was asked to do some basic task, complains that he can not fix the whole world in ten minutes, and the like. Under WP:V all new articles are required to be sourced. Certainly some editors do not source anything, and the articles get tagged accordingly. In principle, editors who create new articles without sources do not comply with the most basic guideline, and are members of one or more of the following segments: newbies, inexperienced editors, sloppy editors, wilful guideline disregarders etc. None of these I would expect to become an admin, since especially the latter class of editors will get into hot water during discussions.
 * As to cherry picking: why didn't you offer a list of your sourced, notable articles, for Mephistophelian to see that your editing is much better than he thought. Why didn't you start to fix the few stubs that were complained about? So it comes down to the following: Mephistophelian compiles a list of questionable content, and you insist that the content remain as it is, although (as you say) you know the guidelines and chose not to comply with them. So who did the cherry picking is really you, isn't it? You pick the articles to which you append sources, and those to which you do not.
 * This whole discussion is disruptive, and your sub-standard non-notable/non-sourced articles/stubs are disruptive: The discussion here shows an overall negative attitude. The sub-standard content needs other people to go out of their way to fix it. Besides, we have a net loss of an experienced editor, who was apparently upset not only by your attitude, Jason, but much more by the general support this type of behaviour found in the community. Kraxler (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kraxler. I wish to focus solely on your first point because I believe it to be the most crucial. The crux of our disagreement hinges on the word "can", which means "to be able". The first sentence ("In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.") does not require a that every statement actually be verified by a citation. To fulfill that first sentence, all that matters is that a reliable source EXISTS that could be used to verify it. The existence of such a reliable source renders the statement verifiable. That sentence does not say something to the effect of, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source using a provided reference." As one reads V, I believe it becomes clear that my interpretation is far more consistent with the document than yours. For instance, V talks a lot about contentious material requiring sources. For instance, it says, "Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." (bolding is my own) It doesn't say, "Please remove unsourced material about living people immediately" or the even more general "Remove unsourced material immediately". V clearly allows unsourced material to exist within Wikipedia (even on BLP articles which have more strict criteria!) and therefore such material is not against policy. Under your view, unsourced material is against V and therefore against policy and therefore should be removed. Instead, V wisely utilizes the notion of contentiousness, and it is of paramount importance. Contention is what kicks in the extra requirement of needing a reference put in the article. Almost the entire document's spirit is in line with my point of view and much of the text is unnecessary or too weakly worded to be congruent with this idea of "verified" by a reference". The line that best supports your view is the first footnote ("Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"). But even this footnote does require the actual reference, just that the the editor be sure it is verifiable. This text was changed from a version more consistent with my view (and the rest of the document). The wording of that footnote puts an absurd burden on editors that is completely impractical. The original wording, which is still quasi-part of the document in footnote form, was far better. I don't know if you'll be convinced by my argument. But I have examined and re-examined my view. I believe it shows a deep understanding of V and we will have to agree to disagree for now. I won't take it personally if you oppose my RfA. [PS I'm also wise enough about the nature of "law", to know that written law (in our case, policies and guidelines) are not perfect documents and there's a danger to interpreting them too literally or focusing too much on individual statements. At some point, one's understanding of law strives for highest consistency rather than total consistency with every statement. This my be too abstract a notion to bring up at the moment, so I digress.] Jason Quinn (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kraxler, your tone in this RFA (which is now due to be closed in a couple of 24 hours) has been surprisingly hostile throughout, pumping bad air into every disagreement. I've certainly never seen anybody get accused of "rant[ing] on for three sentences" before... And on the the main page, I noted that when your Oppose was (mildly) criticized by a third party, you escalated steeply, hinting that only WP:CIVIL was holding you back from stating your apparently unspeakable real thoughts of the candidate's suitability for admin, and even suggesting that Jason ought to withdraw his candidacy (which, please note, was even then clearly on the way to succeed). By the look of it, Jason seems pretty unperturbed; but you're certainly doing your bit to ensure that more vulnerable good editors continue to hesitate to run the gauntlet of RFA and risk intemperate attacks on their competence and good faith. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Sorry, Bishonen, but I disagree with you. I'm debating a question of logical reasoning here with Jason. Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You "disagree" that you're being needlessly hostile? That's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact. I can tell you right now that Jason's chances of getting the bit have been improved by his calm responses to your badgering. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)