Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/R 2

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 [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=R&site=en.wikipedia.org Interiot's wannabe Kate tool]. WjBscribe 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

(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)