Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Diez2

User:diez2

run at Sat Jul 28 18:35:44 2007 GMT
Category talk:	6
Category:	11
Image:	4
Mainspace	1000
Talk:	429
Template talk:	6
Template:	194 
User talk:	1290
User:	76
Wikipedia talk:	90
Wikipedia:	1314
avg edits per page	 1.67
earliest	02:29, 25 August 2006
number of unique pages	2645
total	4420
2006/8	3	
2006/9	83	
2006/10	432	
2006/11	970	
2006/12	504	
2007/1	857	
2007/2	621	
2007/3	114	
2007/4	173	
2007/5	319	
2007/6	113	
2007/7	231

Deletion warnings

I trawled Diez's deleted edits and compiled some data on deletion tagging (speedy, prod, and AFD nominations). These are from the last 100 deleted edits, going back to this February:

User:Gosswriter, another editor created a userpage for someone; no warning.
Tom wimpelman, valid A7, no warning.
Abbasieh, Israeli village, no warning
The highest minster in power, nonsense, warned
Shawn neldon, attack page, warned
Myke walker, valid a7, warned
Idris Jusoh, revert to replace a speedy tag, editor already warned
Sadhvi Ritambhara, prod, created by an IP in 2005 in its only two edits, no warning or clear candidate for a warning
George Fairholme, prod, similar situation with an IP, this one belong to a university
Geoff Follin, prod, editor who created in 2005 is still active now, no warning
Vitron, valid A7, warned
Don Alhart, news anchor tagged as A7, warned
BULLDOG BAR, valid G11 (spam), warned
Howard burkons, valid g7, author blanked page, notified
Adrian pittorino, attack page, warned
Kovoism, initially prodded, later deleted through AFD, warned
Colony (CMS), via AFD, created by IP in 2005, no clear candidate for warning
Cook International, prod in Feb, '07, no warning, but no edits by creator except article creation in January, '06
Bradley Turcotte, AFD, again no warning, but no edits since one to that article last September

I'm happy to do more if people want me to go back further.--Chaser - T 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser, as ever you dilligent research is valued. Thank you so much. As the above evidences about a 50% level of warning my oppose in the discussion still stands. I know the warning are not mandatory, but they are recommended and IMHO it is a courtesy to advise the creator of the article on theit talk page of the tag, rather than awaiting a bot to advise them the article has gone. Pedro | Chat 11:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the painstaking research you did, Chaser, but if you do look at my CSD tagging from November 2006 (and before, since this is what Pedro's oppose vote is about), then you will see that I warned almost everyone about their about-to-be-deleted pages. Please take a look, thank you. Diez2 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, if you want me to go spend more time doing this, why don't you tell me first why you changed the regularity with which you warned people?~~--Chaser - T 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. I offered. I'll do it.--Chaser - T 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, these are from 2 & 3 November 2006:

Morzh, no warning
Meech, warned
Aaron Dunmire, warned
Aquietmind, AFD listing, no warning
South Division High School, no warning
Mat Chamberlain, warned
The Tigers and Bears, warned
Faunacide, warned
A list of Japanese trains, warned
Flamboyant willbo, warned at User talk:Willbo140, now deleted
Mark Thomas : Editor, warned
I-Television, no warning
Microworlds JR, warned
Paly Robotics, warned
Lamfung, warned
Jessica Mata!!!!!, warned
Eric Kam, warned
We must overthrow, warned

I'm not doing any more.--Chaser - T 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAR in opposes

Some of the opposes that talk about IAR bother me. If asked when they would ignore the rules, and someone responds by talking about situations where flexibility and judgment are required, this is a reasonable answer IMO. Contrast this with a few of the opposers, who talk about IAR as though it were a rule to be invoked. These opposes carry little weight in my opinion. Friday (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]