` Hi WD, I've just spent about 4 hours reviewing your contributions, and I don't feel as if I've barely touched the surface.  The challenge is tracing down all of the allegations/discussions/debates that you've been involved with.  EG any ANI/AN/RFC/ARBCOM/ETC any time somebody has accused you of POV pushing, etc.  After about 4 hours of reviewing your edits, I have grown more and more convinced of two things.  First, I think you would make a good admin.  (There are still some issues I would normally track down.)  Second, you would fail an RfA in a painful manner.  Here is what would happen, you would get a nom from somebody like me.  You would get a number of ``Supports.``  Then the people whom you've debated in the past will crawl out of the wood work.  They would point to the RfC/ANI/ARBCOM cases and say that you are a POV pusher.  They will then cite some edit or discussion that they says makes you look bad, and rather than investigating further, the RfA voters would accept their position.  Before long, some of the critics would convince your supporters that they know something the supporters don't know.  Again, I think you are doing a great job, unfortunately, you work in a highly contentious area-which means that you will have an unfair burden to overcome in passing an RfA.-''' ' `