Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2
Edit count
[edit]Category talk: 3 Category: 8 Mainspace 6119 MediaWiki talk: 23 MediaWiki: 9 Portal: 75 Talk: 1514 Template talk: 377 Template: 720 User talk: 3124 User: 1107 Wikipedia talk: 172 Wikipedia: 3956 avg edits per page 2.40 earliest 21:10, 6 December 2005 number of unique pages 7184 total 17207 2005/12 17 2006/1 0 2006/2 0 2006/3 0 2006/4 2 2006/5 0 2006/6 16 2006/7 30 2006/8 7 2006/9 17 2006/10 5 2006/11 22 2006/12 1 2007/1 82 2007/2 7 2007/3 56 2007/4 173 2007/5 87 2007/6 128 2007/7 311 2007/8 867 2007/9 287 2007/10 331 2007/11 206 2007/12 214 2008/1 380 2008/2 837 2008/3 818 2008/4 1027 2008/5 1972 2008/6 2240 2008/7 2638 2008/8 2039 2008/9 84 2008/10 1063 2008/11 423 2008/12 635 2009/1 185 Mainspace *641 Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough *160 Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom *145 Monarchy of the United Kingdom *123 Tudor dynasty *103 Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll *85 Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon *49 Princess Helena of the United Kingdom *47 Line of succession to the British throne *28 Hugh Audley *27 Princess Elizabeth of England *25 White Lodge, Richmond Park *21 Agnes Howard, Duchess of Norfolk *18 Albert, Prince Consort *16 Tilgate Park *15 Ranger of Windsor Great Park Talk: *101 Main Page *61 Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough *32 Monarchy of the United Kingdom *19 Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll *17 International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo *15 Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom *12 Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont *12 The Stolen Earth *12 David Lochhead *11 Royal Burial Ground *10 Internet Watch Foundation *9 Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel *9 Line of succession to the British throne *9 Apple *8 Princess Alice of the United Kingdom Category talk: *2 Hill forts in West Sussex Category: *2 Proxy check result templates MediaWiki: *2 Watchlist-details *2 Disambiguationspage MediaWiki talk: *7 Watchlist-details *2 Disambiguationspage *2 Movepage-moved *2 Recentchangestext Portal: *18 Royalty *7 Royalty/Selected picture/2 *4 Royalty/Selected picture/Layout *4 Royalty/Featured content *3 Royalty/Selected biography/1 *3 Royalty/Selected article *3 Royalty/DYK/1 *2 Royalty/Selected quote/7 *2 Royalty/DYK/Layout *2 Royalty/DYK *2 Royalty/Categories *2 Royalty/Selected article/4 *2 Royalty/Selected article/1 *2 Royalty/Wikimedia *2 Royalty/Selected picture Template: *267 Did you know/Next update *68 Did you know *47 Did you know/Next update/Time *9 In the news *6 In the news/Next update/Time *6 African American topics sidebar *5 Presidents of the Russian Federation *5 Football *4 WikiProject Education *4 Physics *4 Firstarticle *3 House of Stuart *3 Waldo-nav *3 WPMED *3 RFPP/doc Template talk: *196 Did you know *8 Football *6 Infobox Television *4 POV *4 WikiProject Video games *4 NovelsWikiProject *4 Blog *4 WPMED *3 Ethnic Macedonians *3 Navboxes *3 Unreferenced *3 WPSchools *3 B-Class *2 S-line *2 Citation User: *194 PeterSymonds/Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll *136 PeterSymonds/Princess Helena of the United Kingdom *127 PeterSymonds *104 PeterSymonds/Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom *88 PeterSymonds/Princess Alice of the United Kingdom *85 PeterSymonds/monobook.js *29 GlassCobra/Editor for deletion *22 Possum/Admin coaching *20 PeterSymonds/Sandbox *17 PeterSymonds/Honours *12 PeterSymonds/Talkarchives *11 PeterSymonds/RfA criteria *9 PeterSymonds/Current and future projects *9 PeterSymonds/Status *8 Garden/WikiCup/2009 User talk: *277 PeterSymonds *66 CTurnbull *54 RyanCross *31 Gary King *16 Bedford *15 Cameron *15 Notindustry *14 Sunsetsunrise *13 Cbl62 *12 Tanthalas39 *12 Kanonkas *11 Juliancolton *11 Editorofthewiki *10 Olaf Davis *10 Boston Wikipedia: *892 Requests for page protection *588 Help desk *164 Requests for rollback *140 Administrator intervention against vandalism *121 Requests for permissions/Rollback *108 Reference desk/Humanities *92 Administrators' noticeboard *87 Changing username *86 Requested moves *46 Recent additions *42 WikiProject on open proxies *40 Main Page/Errors *27 Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds *23 Miscellany for deletion *22 Requests for rollback/Approved/June 2008 Wikipedia talk: *26 WikiProject British Royalty *24 WikiProject Royalty *17 Requests for permissions *12 Help desk *9 Today's featured article/requests *6 Did you know *6 Requests for page protection *5 Image renaming *5 Changing username *4 Requests for rollback *4 WikiProject Video games/The Sims *3 Attribution *3 Twinkle *3 Main Page/Tomorrow *3 Request an account
Retrieved via this linkat Thu Jan 15 20:41:25 2009 GMT by NuclearWarfare (Talk)
Administrator Actions
[edit]| Action | Count |
|---|---|
| Edits | 15512 |
| Edits+Deleted | 15071 |
| Pages deleted | 3592 |
| Revisions deleted | {{{revdel}}} |
| Logs/Events deleted | {{{eventdel}}} |
| Pages restored | 65 |
| Pages protected | 680 |
| Pages unprotected | 325 |
| Pages imported | {{{import}}} |
| Protections modified | {{{modify}}} |
| Users blocked | 287 |
| Users reblocked | {{{reblock}}} |
| Users unblocked | {{{unblock}}} |
| User rights modified | 146 |
| Users created | 30 |
| Abuse filters modified | {{{filter}}} |
| Pages merged | {{{merge}}} |
| Mass messages sent | {{{massmessage}}} |
| Users renamed | {{{rename}}} |
As of 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
hounding Opposers
[edit]... the same folks who constantly yap about how RfA is so broken are the ones who hound Opposers. Insert exasperated curse word here. Why can't folks see that this is a part of the problem? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Although I've probably opposed about half of the candidates I've voted on since I passed RfA and took an interest in such things (before then I had only voted in one RfA, because an editor I knew was standing), I kinda hate it because you can make yourself a target for all the candidate's friends.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's funny. The people who make RFA broken are the opposers :) So perhaps they need "hounding" (hounding is of course a complete exaggeration of reality). Majorly talk 03:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Majorly here. The reason often cited for why RfA is broken is because editors oppose over the slightest flaws. Extensive discussion about the oppose votes' rationale can perhaps like to a rethinking of positions, and a happier environment for all. Just think. How would RfA be if you couldn't respond to another user's vote. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually an interesting idea. Or if the job of responding was limited to the candidate and the nominator(s) ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- <Sarcastic reply redacted>. I agree. In theory, I don't mind people making comments; it's the comments that are made.. the heckling, cajoling, bullying, what kind of an idiot are you, how dare you oppose, etc. But it will never stop. Sigh. Perhaps limiting the responses to the candidate and the nominator(s) is a very very good idea. Maybe a little sandbox page where others can suggest a response. I knoww it sounds childish, but.... it fits the situation. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- But people oppose when the candidate responds to each opposer, since (somehow) it comes across as combative. That's a trap I fell into during my first RfB; I thought I was doing a good thing by responding to concerns as they were voiced, but it appeared to everyone else that I was badgering people. Very perplexing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- <Sarcastic reply redacted>. I agree. In theory, I don't mind people making comments; it's the comments that are made.. the heckling, cajoling, bullying, what kind of an idiot are you, how dare you oppose, etc. But it will never stop. Sigh. Perhaps limiting the responses to the candidate and the nominator(s) is a very very good idea. Maybe a little sandbox page where others can suggest a response. I knoww it sounds childish, but.... it fits the situation. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually an interesting idea. Or if the job of responding was limited to the candidate and the nominator(s) ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- People claim RFA is a !vote, so that means it's not a vote. Discussion is allowed. If you find your vote being questioned (or hounded if you like to exaggerate), perhaps it's an indication your reasoning simply isn't good enough. This is especially true when more than one person questions (or badgers) it (this is commonly known as a "witchhunt" or "lynch mob"). Majorly talk 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Or it could be an indication that the candidate has loyal friends. Which do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would stick up for every Tom, Dick or Harry who was getting unfair treatment by opposers. It's nothing to do with friends a lot of the time. It has everything to do with helping out a fellow user getting bashed by a load of opposers because they forgot to sign their candidacy, or they incorrectly reverted back to a vandalised version of a page a few months ago. Majorly talk 04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Or it could be an indication that the candidate has loyal friends. Which do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- People claim RFA is a !vote, so that means it's not a vote. Discussion is allowed. If you find your vote being questioned (or hounded if you like to exaggerate), perhaps it's an indication your reasoning simply isn't good enough. This is especially true when more than one person questions (or badgers) it (this is commonly known as a "witchhunt" or "lynch mob"). Majorly talk 04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- RfA is a discussion, not a !vote. There is nothing wrong with discussing opposes. The "B" word is thrown around way too lightly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- RfA is a popularity contest, disguised as a !vote, disguised as an election. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uh... not to be rude here... but Welcome to the real world... Since when was an election not disguised as a popularity contest? Spending 125 million on a campaign for a 400,000/year job... hmmmmmm where have I seen this before? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 10:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Since people started believing in !votes. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uh... not to be rude here... but Welcome to the real world... Since when was an election not disguised as a popularity contest? Spending 125 million on a campaign for a 400,000/year job... hmmmmmm where have I seen this before? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 10:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- RfA is a popularity contest, disguised as a !vote, disguised as an election. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)