Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/R 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Edit stats
Category talk: 2 Category: 2 Image talk: 2 Image: 20 Mainspace 2248 MediaWiki talk: 1 Portal: 1 Talk: 296 Template talk: 33 Template: 137 User talk: 2873 User: 882 Wikipedia talk: 507 Wikipedia: 1725 avg edits per page 2.73 earliest 13:49, 24 February 2006 number of unique pages 3200 total 8729 2006/2 17 2006/3 102 2006/4 199 2006/5 188 2006/6 144 2006/7 136 2006/8 105 2006/9 169 2006/10 206 2006/11 312 2006/12 999 2007/1 760 2007/2 736 2007/3 1476 2007/4 975 2007/5 679 2007/6 677 2007/7 327 2007/8 218 2007/9 304
Run at 01:55:19 Sun Sep 23 2007 UTC using Interiot's wannabe Kate tool. WjBscribe 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Most edited pages
Mainspace
162 The Amazing Race 10
138 The Amazing Race 11
134 The Amazing Race 9
87 Survivor (TV series)
79 Survivor: Cook Islands
73 The Amazing Race
67 Survivor: Panama
45 The Bellmores, New York
39 Survivor: Fiji
38 The Amazing Race 1
36 The Amazing Race 8
35 Treasure Hunters (TV series)
33 Merrick, New York
23 Survivor: All-Stars
22 The Amazing Race 5
Talk:
45 The Amazing Race 10
40 Main Page
35 The Amazing Race 9
23 The Amazing Race 11
23 Survivor: Cook Islands
23 American Revolution/Esperanza collaboration discussion
20 The Amazing Race
14 Treasure Hunters (TV series)
10 Survivor (TV series)
9 Survivor: Panama
9 Survivor: Fiji
5 Survivor: China
4 The Bellmores, New York
4 American Revolution/Archive 1
4 Survivor: The Australian Outback
Category talk:
2 WelcomeBotResearch
Image:
5 Washington Monument 1.JPG
3 Babe Ruth Plaque.JPG
2 Thedaclark.jpg
2 Howe Caverns.JPG
Image talk:
2 Survivor seasons countries.PNG
Template:
18 Vandalism information
13 Survivor
11 Singlenotice/inner
7 The Amazing Race
7 Survivor contestants
6 Survnovote
5 Uw-sandbox
4 Survtwice
4 CUU
3 2007 New York Yankees season game log
3 Future tvshow information
2 Heb
2 AFDNote
2 Uw-pinfo
2 Uw-blank
Template talk:
6 Survivor contestants
3 Emergency-bot-shutoff
2 Former motorcycle Grand Prix Racer
User:
227 R
209 R/Status
76 R/monobook.js
57 R/Header
21 R Delivery Bot/Directions
18 R/Adopt/Users/Corvus coronoides
17 R/Subpages
15 R/Sandbox
14 R/monobook.css
13 R/EFD
11 RBot
6 R/Adopt/Users/Roxas
6 R/@
6 R/Adopt/Users/Dolphinn
6 R/Adopt/Users/Jon1992
User talk:
303 R
83 AzaToth
83 Newyorkbrad
48 Phaedriel
44 Mets501
31 ST47
30 Misza13
27 TortureIsWrong
18 RBot
18 Animum
17 Ryan Postlethwaite
17 CO
16 Khukri
13 R/Sandbox
12 Example
Wikipedia:
301 Administrator intervention against vandalism
221 Requests for comment/User names
91 Changing username/Usurpations
55 Usernames for administrator attention
37 Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 3
31 Village pump (technical)
31 Help desk
27 Administrators' noticeboard
25 Reference desk/Computing
25 Requests for adminship/R
23 Changing username
21 Bot requests
21 Editor review/TeckWiz
21 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
20 AutoWikiBrowser/User talk templates
Wikipedia talk:
92 Requests for adminship
61 WikiProject user warnings
58 Template messages/User talk namespace
37 Changing username/Usurpations
32 AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs
32 AutoWikiBrowser
28 WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle
21 Esperanza
19 AutoWikiBrowser/Dev
15 Flagged revisions/Sighted versions
11 Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month
10 Changing username
9 Usernames for administrator attention
8 Requests for comment/User names
7 Adopt-a-User
[edit] List of prior RfA
The list of prior RfA's seems like a transclusion of all RfA's beginning with "R". Is this a bug of some sort? Never mind, fixed. Ronnotel 01:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC) :The automatic nomination template created that and it's being worked on. Note that as of 01:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC) the nom is not live yet. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Live by now, obviously. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Questions before transclusion?
I'm reading some nonsense about the whole IRC gangup; I know that votes are bad form, but is it considered harmful to add a question for the candidate to answer before the page is transcluded? I didn't intend to stir up any trouble. I just saw the RfA linked from my a talk page on my watchlist.
If so, sorry R! My bad. ➪HiDrNick! 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion: Technically it probably isn't supposed to happen, but no harm done. Newyorkbrad 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion moved from the nomination page
On the nomination page, I'd posted a comment in response to VanTucky's oppose, asking if they'd like to clerify their reasoning. While I feel the responses I got did provide more or less what I sought, which was insight into the reasons people had for opposing this nomination, I rather agree with those who have expressed the opinion that conducting such extensive discussion within the oppose section makes that section hard to read, and could come across as an attempt to "shout out" the opposition. Since that was never my intent, I've moved my comment and the ensuing discussion below. I hope none of the people who responded will mind. If you wish to continue the discussion, feel free to do so here.
Re: VanTucky's oppose comment:
- I'm not sure if that's what you mean by it, but "too divisive" kind of sounds like "oppose, because others are opposing". If that's not the kind of division you meant, you might want to clarify. (As for maturity, I'd be a lot less inclined to support if anyone actually provided some examples of inappropriately immature behavior. The few links I've seen, such as User:R/Single Letter Group, User:R/EFD and User:R/Rant, seem pretty reasonable to me, and some, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Brown, actually seem to show fairly reasonable maturity and ability to admit mistakes.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did I mention that the combative responses to opposers also don't inspire me either? The bottom line is: to me those diffs, and the reasonable criticisms by others, are sufficient evidence to know that the candidate is not to be reasonably trusted with the tools. VanTucky Talk 01:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can see how one might defend the userpages, but the cricket thing? Come on... TeckWiz's reply to a courteous invitation to re-read WP:BIO included ""In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's." You can argue that he's improved since but at least at the time, it did not show reasonable maturity and ability to admit mistakes. Pascal.Tesson 02:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pascal:If I don't show the ability to admit mistakes, why did I withdraw the nomination and apologize? Secondly, that was a long time ago, everyone makes mistakes. Van Tucky: That's three diffs over more than one and a half years. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- When you make five RFA attempts within that period, completely ignoring prevous constructive criticism, there is naught to do but reinforce the same points. The reason RFAs pass after other failed attempts is that the candidate makes a demonstrable change in the behavior that caused them to fail. You have not even tried to do so, much less calmed the previous doubts of your RFAs. VanTucky Talk 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- R, you did indeed withdraw the cricket afd but it did take some convincing. This is exactly the kind of iffy judgment that has me worried. A newbie comes along and sees his AfD deleted because nobody cares about the 19th century, that newbie is gone for good. In all fairness, I don't think you'd have speedy deleted it but I just don't think you can handle the admin responsibilities. Pascal.Tesson 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- First of all Pascal, I would really like to thank you for being an opposer that actual responds to questions asked and doesn't refuse to back up their so called facts. Secondly, I see what you mean, and that's the bad thing, that adminship can only be given as a whole, not just protection, blocks, or deletes. It seems not as many people think I would controversial at AIV, UAA, and RFCN, and if that was the only thing I would be doing, I bet I would pass. (Blocking at those places also has absolutely nothing to do with article writing). Too bad I can't run like that. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- R, there's the very problem I think we're all concerned about right there - "...so called facts..." - say something like that to any editor when your doing work as an admin and you will very, very, very rapidly piss perfectly good editors off. I find such a comment really rather alarming, I'm afraid. You might disagree with what Pascal has said and you would disagree with what an editor says too, but you just can't go around making bitey comments like that. Nick 07:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Come on. The cricket AFD incident was half a year ago. Do you seriously think R would nominate an article again because "people from the 19th century are less notable"? He has been criticised a lot for this one minor stupid incident, so I bet he has learned from it. Let's try to forgive mistakes, and look at his recent contributions. Melsaran (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- First of all Pascal, I would really like to thank you for being an opposer that actual responds to questions asked and doesn't refuse to back up their so called facts. Secondly, I see what you mean, and that's the bad thing, that adminship can only be given as a whole, not just protection, blocks, or deletes. It seems not as many people think I would controversial at AIV, UAA, and RFCN, and if that was the only thing I would be doing, I bet I would pass. (Blocking at those places also has absolutely nothing to do with article writing). Too bad I can't run like that. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- R, you did indeed withdraw the cricket afd but it did take some convincing. This is exactly the kind of iffy judgment that has me worried. A newbie comes along and sees his AfD deleted because nobody cares about the 19th century, that newbie is gone for good. In all fairness, I don't think you'd have speedy deleted it but I just don't think you can handle the admin responsibilities. Pascal.Tesson 02:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- When you make five RFA attempts within that period, completely ignoring prevous constructive criticism, there is naught to do but reinforce the same points. The reason RFAs pass after other failed attempts is that the candidate makes a demonstrable change in the behavior that caused them to fail. You have not even tried to do so, much less calmed the previous doubts of your RFAs. VanTucky Talk 02:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pascal:If I don't show the ability to admit mistakes, why did I withdraw the nomination and apologize? Secondly, that was a long time ago, everyone makes mistakes. Van Tucky: That's three diffs over more than one and a half years. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
(If there are no objections, I'd like to suggest that others who have started or contributed to extensive inline discussions on the nomination page do the same. Let's keep this RfA readable.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
