Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/N5iln
Username: N5iln
User groups: reviewer, rollbacker
First edit: May 15, 2006 19:11:03
Unique pages edited: 22,053
Average edits per page: 1.30
Live edits: 28,105
Deleted edits: 671
Total edits (including deleted): 28,776
Article 12471 44.37%
Talk 515 1.83%
User 268 0.95%
User talk 12817 45.61%
Wikipedia 1897 6.75%
Wikipedia talk 41 0.15%
File 21 0.07%
File talk 1 0.00%
MediaWiki talk 1 0.00%
Template 49 0.17%
Template talk 4 0.01%
Help talk 3 0.01%
Category 15 0.05%
Portal 1 0.00%
Month counts
2006/05 12
2006/06 0
2006/07 2
2006/08 0
2006/09 0
2006/10 0
2006/11 0
2006/12 0
2007/01 0
2007/02 0
2007/03 7
2007/04 406
2007/05 535
2007/06 0
2007/07 0
2007/08 0
2007/09 0
2007/10 0
2007/11 0
2007/12 0
2008/01 0
2008/02 0
2008/03 0
2008/04 0
2008/05 0
2008/06 0
2008/07 0
2008/08 0
2008/09 0
2008/10 0
2008/11 0
2008/12 0
2009/01 0
2009/02 0
2009/03 0
2009/04 0
2009/05 0
2009/06 0
2009/07 0
2009/08 671
2009/09 6604
2009/10 3658
2009/11 768
2009/12 282
2010/01 384
2010/02 791
2010/03 1389
2010/04 1686
2010/05 1344
2010/06 463
2010/07 365
2010/08 193
2010/09 313
2010/10 398
2010/11 859
2010/12 599
2011/01 627
2011/02 1321
2011/03 1222
2011/04 881
2011/05 1088
2011/06 786
2011/07 450
Article
* 31 - Drag_racing
* 23 - Firefly_(TV_series)
* 18 - National_Hot_Rod_Association
* 16 - Colbie_Caillat
* 13 - 2011_NHRA_Full_Throttle_Drag_Racing_Series_season
* 12 - MV_Bright_Field
* 12 - Firefighter
* 11 - 2010_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series
* 10 - Cirque_du_Freak:_The_Vampire's_Assistant
* 10 - Kurt_Busch
Talk
* 62 - Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden
* 11 - Gabrielle_Giffords
* 10 - Drag_racing
* 9 - Emergency_medical_technician
* 8 - R_(programming_language)
* 7 - Mike_Skinner_(musician)
* 7 - Firefly_(TV_series)
* 6 - Barack_Obama
* 6 - Ubuntu_(operating_system)
* 5 - Van_Jones
User
* 86 - N5iln
* 21 - N5iln/huggle.css
* 14 - N5iln/monobook.js
* 5 - Deucalionite/WP:Accurate_reference_citations
* 5 - TheCatalyst31
* 5 - N5iln/2011_NHRA_Full_Throttle_Drag_Racing_Series_s...
* 4 - N5iln/sandbox
* 3 - Chris-in-the-hemel
* 3 - Deucalionite/Treaties
* 3 - Abc518
User talk
* 345 - N5iln
* 8 - 199.44.252.34
* 6 - 74.0.157.163
* 6 - Tide_rolls
* 6 - 92.251.69.19
* 5 - 65.246.143.130
* 5 - Ordurac
* 5 - 86.133.152.183
* 5 - 96.35.145.30
* 5 - 79.71.240.71
Wikipedia
* 528 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 476 - Huggle/Whitelist
* 400 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
* 61 - Requests_for_page_protection
* 25 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
* 14 - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
* 9 - Huggle/Feedback
* 9 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot
* 9 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring
* 9 - Requests_for_adminship/N5iln
Wikipedia talk
* 5 - WikiProject_Anime_and_manga
* 5 - Requests_for_adminship/Dylan620_2
* 5 - Requests_for_adminship
* 4 - WikiProject_Spam
* 2 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
* 2 - Twinkle
* 2 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 2 - Ambassadors
* 1 - Citing_sources
* 1 - Signatures
File
* 1 - Top_of_Atmosphere.jpg
* 1 - Cats_&_Dogs_film.jpg
* 1 - Lima_Convento_San_Fransisco.jpg
* 1 - K-strawberry234.jpg
* 1 - Clarence_Hotel_Dublin.png
* 1 - Single_lavendar_flower02.jpg
* 1 - Animalcrackers_lg.jpg
* 1 - Gormogon.jpg
* 1 - Fruitnveg-3.png
* 1 - SyrianPassportVisaFree.PNG
File talk
* 1 - Elephant_seal_colony_edit.jpg
MediaWiki talk
* 1 - Spam-blacklist
Template
* 10 - Vandalism_information
* 4 - HTTP
* 1 - Infobox_magnesium
* 1 - PBB/7273
* 1 - Madonna
* 1 - User_page/doc
* 1 - Cleanup/doc
* 1 - Noontime_variety_shows_in_the_Philippines
* 1 - Standard
* 1 - Gridded_chart_of_ITU_prefixes
Template talk
* 1 - Editnotices/Page/Talk:Main_Page
* 1 - Shared_IP
* 1 - Asia_topics
* 1 - The_Holocaust_(end)
Help talk
* 1 - Editing
* 1 - Using_talk_pages
* 1 - Edit_summary
Category
* 1 - Ships
* 1 - Châteaux_in_France
* 1 - Languages_of_Honduras
* 1 - Tokugawa_clan
* 1 - 1996_disasters
* 1 - Wikipedians_who_use_VandalProof
* 1 - American_female_singers
* 1 - Hip_hop_production
* 1 - Russian_anti-communists
* 1 - Ancient_Greek_cities
Portal
* 1 - Nautical
Discussion following the first oppose
[edit]Oppose Per the signatures policy that the candidate even links to in his own userbox, signatures that contain no reference to the username are strongly discouraged. Keepscases (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- If my signature is the biggest objection to this RfA, I'd be happy to alter it. As I recall, there's a precedent for doing so, in the body of Thumperward. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ADDITIONAL - please note that I have made the change. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Sorry, but the fact that your "change" was to simply tack your username to the end of the already-lengthy nickname is just unsatisfactory to me. It's now unnecessarily excessive to the point that it's borderline patronizing. I realize that you just did the same thing Thumperward did, but Thumperward is just using their name. It's a different situation. I could think of several changes that would be reasonable enough for me to move to neutral, but this is kind of a bizarre way of appeasing those who have a problem, IMHO. Swarm X 06:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- This coming from someone whose sig markup is longer than the candidates revised sig, who uses a different font and then italicises it and whose link to their talkpage is an "X"... Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- It can't be that hard to mouse over the name and look at the corner of the browser for a second. --Σ talkcontribs 17:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Have to agree with LessHeard vanU, though I agree that adding "User:5iln" to the end of the signature is unnecessary - I saw no problem with the original sig. Mato (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- They made the change to address the opposes; I shared my personal opinion, as an opposer, as to why I personally would not be recanting my oppose, even in part, despite the change that they made. Attacking me like that is completely uncalled for, not to mention royally uncool. FTR, none of the things you attempted to "call me on" are in any way out of line with policy or accepted practices on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the length of the markup (or anything else) in my signature personally bothers you, or anyone, I would be more than happy to revise my signature completely- I wouldn't just make an arbitrary, patronizing change just so I could politically say "I did it" in an RfA. Swarm X 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have about as much issue with your signature as I do with appearing "uncool"; somewhere to the indifferent multiple of none. All I did was comment that someone who is concerned how the candidates sig appears also stylises their own. I have not commented on whether the reason is vacuous or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- So the user is damned if he does or damned if he doesn't? Opposing for a signature problem is one thing: stubbornly refusing to reconsider even in part when that problem is addressed is quite another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't "stubbornly refuse to reconsider". I absolutely did reconsider my stance, and I updated my opinion with a clear explanation of why I won't be changing my stance. If you don't understand or disagree with my opinion, let me know, but for the love of god, man, don't accuse me of something that is quite blatantly untrue. Swarm X 15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Meh. I've a hard time believing you'd have opposed based on the current sig had it been in place at the beginning. I'm interested in whether any of the other opposing on sig grounds still feel that's a problem. Better to follow up on talk though if required. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Replied on talk page, please continue this there if necessary. Swarm X 18:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Meh. I've a hard time believing you'd have opposed based on the current sig had it been in place at the beginning. I'm interested in whether any of the other opposing on sig grounds still feel that's a problem. Better to follow up on talk though if required. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't "stubbornly refuse to reconsider". I absolutely did reconsider my stance, and I updated my opinion with a clear explanation of why I won't be changing my stance. If you don't understand or disagree with my opinion, let me know, but for the love of god, man, don't accuse me of something that is quite blatantly untrue. Swarm X 15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- They made the change to address the opposes; I shared my personal opinion, as an opposer, as to why I personally would not be recanting my oppose, even in part, despite the change that they made. Attacking me like that is completely uncalled for, not to mention royally uncool. FTR, none of the things you attempted to "call me on" are in any way out of line with policy or accepted practices on Wikipedia. Furthermore, if the length of the markup (or anything else) in my signature personally bothers you, or anyone, I would be more than happy to revise my signature completely- I wouldn't just make an arbitrary, patronizing change just so I could politically say "I did it" in an RfA. Swarm X 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- This coming from someone whose sig markup is longer than the candidates revised sig, who uses a different font and then italicises it and whose link to their talkpage is an "X"... Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Sorry, but the fact that your "change" was to simply tack your username to the end of the already-lengthy nickname is just unsatisfactory to me. It's now unnecessarily excessive to the point that it's borderline patronizing. I realize that you just did the same thing Thumperward did, but Thumperward is just using their name. It's a different situation. I could think of several changes that would be reasonable enough for me to move to neutral, but this is kind of a bizarre way of appeasing those who have a problem, IMHO. Swarm X 06:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
(←) I wouldn't have opposed if that was always their sig. The new sig isn't the point. If someone complained about the "x" in my sig (let's say they thought it should say "talk"), I don't think they would find it reasonable for me to change it to: Swarm TALK to the aforementioned Wikipedia user. I think they would feel patronized by the new, excessive version. I think they would acknowledge that yes, their concern was technically addressed, but it was not done in a reasonable way. There's the analogy to this situation. The problem is no longer with the sig, the problem was with their unreasonable response to a complaint, which, if done to intentionally patronize is a behavioral problem and if done in good faith is a judgement problem. Swarm X 19:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Given that the change Alan made was what I suggested he do (via linking to the same change that Chris Cunningham made), I have to assume that you think my suggestion was unreasonable as well. Obviously I disagree with that. Why do you think that him listening to my feedback necessarily means he's either patronizing or has poor judgment? 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh... Er, okay, looks like I stand invalidated. Based on his reply to Q1, I was under the impression that he simply "recalled" the Thumperward case. I was totally unaware that he was abiding by someone's suggestion with that change. Of course I can't hold the change against him if that's the case. So, no, 28, I didn't think your suggestion was unreasonable, I was just completely unaware of it (though for obvious reasons I don't agree with it). Thanks for clearing that up. Pic related. Swarm X 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have to say, and this may be unpopular, that I support Swarm's oppose even if he had not considered changing it. Disclosure here: I did oppose for other reasons. The reason I support Swarm is similar to what other perceived me doing in my first RfA; although I dont feel that's what I did. The question is, can the candidate change their answer (or signature) to conform to the opposes will in an RfA for the sake of passing it? I agree it's a simple and easy fix, but the larger picture is that it wasn't fixed until pointed out. Now, I dont actually agree that a signature is worth opposing an RfA for, but I support Swarm's right to an opinion on the matter. For me, it comes down to this: If Hersfold changed his opinion (truly changed it, not just said it) about Q15, would the opposes have reconsidered their oppose? I honestly doubt it. If everyone could come to RfA, get advice, change their behavior during the week and then everyone !voted at the end then we'd have a much higher pass rate at RfA. Just my two cents.--v/r - TP 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- That was unnecessary, TParis, so thanks for that. :) I just want to be clear that I'm opposing for multiple reasons other than the sig. It was a 'minor issue' to me. I just made an off the cuff remark about how the change seemed arbitrary and wasn't satisfying to me. Of course, they were following a suggestion so I was wrong, but that wasn't why I opposed in the first place. Swarm X 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- In my own RfA I got some support by changing my sig (in the exact same manner) which may have pushed it over the top. I think I've done a pretty decent job with the mop over the last year, and yet it might have failed for something which was easily corrected during the week (and which has far less impact on my ability to wield the mop than pretty much anything else does). RfA already sucks because of all the moronic litmus tests people apply, and that gets much worse if they're not prepared to change their minds if the candidate improves. There can be little worse on the project than some dude saying "I know you've been busting your balls with all these vandalism reports, but I don't like your user page / haircut, please come back in six months". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have to say, and this may be unpopular, that I support Swarm's oppose even if he had not considered changing it. Disclosure here: I did oppose for other reasons. The reason I support Swarm is similar to what other perceived me doing in my first RfA; although I dont feel that's what I did. The question is, can the candidate change their answer (or signature) to conform to the opposes will in an RfA for the sake of passing it? I agree it's a simple and easy fix, but the larger picture is that it wasn't fixed until pointed out. Now, I dont actually agree that a signature is worth opposing an RfA for, but I support Swarm's right to an opinion on the matter. For me, it comes down to this: If Hersfold changed his opinion (truly changed it, not just said it) about Q15, would the opposes have reconsidered their oppose? I honestly doubt it. If everyone could come to RfA, get advice, change their behavior during the week and then everyone !voted at the end then we'd have a much higher pass rate at RfA. Just my two cents.--v/r - TP 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh... Er, okay, looks like I stand invalidated. Based on his reply to Q1, I was under the impression that he simply "recalled" the Thumperward case. I was totally unaware that he was abiding by someone's suggestion with that change. Of course I can't hold the change against him if that's the case. So, no, 28, I didn't think your suggestion was unreasonable, I was just completely unaware of it (though for obvious reasons I don't agree with it). Thanks for clearing that up. Pic related. Swarm X 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)