Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Rjanag
Editing stats for Rjanag at 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC):
General user info
Username: Rjanag
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Aug 19, 2008 05:50:38
Unique articles edited: 6,652
Average edits per page: 3.86
Total edits (including deleted): 25,694
Deleted edits: 1,041
Live edits: 24,653
Namespace totals
Article 10812 43.86%
Talk 2003 8.12%
User 1227 4.98%
User talk 4075 16.53%
Wikipedia 1663 6.75%
Wikipedia talk 891 3.61%
File 83 0.34%
File talk 3 0.01%
MediaWiki talk 5 0.02%
Template 1025 4.16%
Template talk 2844 11.54%
Help 1 0.00%
Help talk 1 0.00%
Category 17 0.07%
Portal 1 0.00%
Portal talk 2 0.01%
Graph
Month counts
2008/08 138
2008/09 1388
2008/10 2738
2008/11 4123
2008/12 4628
2009/01 2591
2009/02 2919
2009/03 3209
2009/04 2919
Logs
Pages moved: 117
Files uploaded: 59
Top edited articles
Article
* 249 - Gunnerkrigg_Court
* 214 - South_Korea
* 179 - Street_newspaper
* 148 - Asher_Roth
* 145 - Neurolinguistics
* 132 - One-child_policy
* 123 - Re-education_through_labor
* 114 - Lolcat
* 97 - Shenzhou_7
* 84 - Xkcd
Talk
* 47 - Street_newspaper
* 46 - Shenzhou_7
* 42 - He_Kexin
* 42 - South_Korea
* 39 - Gay
* 38 - Hello
* 37 - Lolcat
* 33 - Xkcd
* 31 - Hangul
* 28 - The_Order_of_the_Stick
User
* 297 - Rjanag
* 248 - Rjanag/Sandbox
* 103 - Rjanag/Contributions
* 90 - Rjanag/NewDYKnom_dev
* 66 - Rjanag/DYKs_and_awards
* 42 - Rjanag/Userboxes
* 29 - Rjanag/Neurotechniques
* 28 - Rjanag/Street_newspapers_topic
* 23 - Purplebananasandelephants/Casper_Reel
* 19 - Rjanag/WikiBirthday
User talk
* 404 - Rjanag
* 59 - Gatoclass
* 38 - Bobby_fletcher
* 34 - Artarch
* 33 - Mattisse
* 30 - Suntag
* 25 - Backslash_Forwardslash
* 23 - Cdogsimmons
* 20 - LedRush
* 18 - Bryceman99
Wikipedia
* 365 - Sandbox
* 98 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 62 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
* 53 - Featured_article_candidates/Street_newspaper
* 39 - Village_pump_(technical)
* 29 - Articles_for_deletion/Rare_Disease_Day
* 28 - Good_article_nominations
* 27 - Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop
* 26 - Articles_for_deletion/Surveillance_and_Incarcerati...
* 24 - Requests_for_adminship/Ottava_Rima
Wikipedia talk
* 701 - Did_you_know
* 38 - Requests_for_adminship
* 21 - Notability_(people)
* 17 - Plagiarism
* 9 - Requests_for_adminship/Law
* 8 - Requests_for_mediation/Li_Yong_(Tang_Dynasty)
* 7 - Requests_for_adminship/ChildofMidnight
* 7 - WikiProject_China
* 7 - Notability_(fiction)
* 5 - Did_you_know/Additional_rules
File
* 8 - YiWuSuoYou_sample.ogg
* 6 - Shayang_outside.JPG
* 6 - Questionable_content_1158-4.JPG
* 5 - HoboNews.jpg
* 5 - Crusade_RobynYoung.jpg
* 5 - CuiJian_blindfold.JPG
* 5 - JephJacques.JPG
* 4 - 243187290_9e3c50a6a3.jpg
* 3 - Shayang_workers.JPG
* 3 - Bigissue.jpg
File talk
* 2 - Montserrat_Mountains,_Catalonia,_Spain_-_Jan_2007....
* 1 - Voice_of_Fire.jpg
MediaWiki talk
* 4 - Spam-whitelist
* 1 - Editnotice-11-Did_you_know
Template
* 143 - Did_you_know/Next_update
* 118 - NewDYKnomination
* 82 - Did_you_know/Next_next_update
* 73 - DYKsuggestion
* 65 - DYKsug
* 60 - DYKproblem
* 48 - DYKsuggestion/Test
* 34 - DYKproblem/doc
* 30 - NewDYKnomination/doc
* 30 - DYKsug/doc
Template talk
* 2663 - Did_you_know
* 98 - DYKsuggestion
* 10 - User_Wikipedian_For
* 8 - User_Good_Articles_reviewed
* 8 - Future_public_transportation
* 6 - DYKproblem
* 5 - BLP_unsourced
* 4 - '
* 3 - Click
* 3 - Lang-ug3
Help
* 1 - Multilingual_support_(Indic)
Help talk
* 1 - CentralAuth
Category
* 5 - Current_Wikipedia_birthdays
* 2 - DYK_templates_for_making_nominations
* 1 - Syndromes
* 1 - DYK_instruction_templates
* 1 - DYK_templates_for_user_talkpages
* 1 - Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Kikbguy
* 1 - DYK_templates_for_preparing_updates
* 1 - Deprecated_DYK_templates
* 1 - DYK_userboxes
* 1 - DYK_templates_for_record-keeping
Portal
* 1 - Creationism/Intro
Portal talk
* 2 - Creationism
Gotta run
[edit]I'm on the way to class, so if any new questions are posted now I won't be able to respond for at least another hour and a half or so. I'll try to catch back up with everything once I'm back, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Dougtech oppose
[edit]
- Go away. Tan | 39 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- As much as we disagree with it, he is entitled to his own opinion. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- And as much as he is entitled to his own opinion, his hypocrisy of nominating someone for adminship after several weeks of his blanket opposing for "too many administrators currently" is astounding. — Σxplicit 04:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Trust me, if we ignore this behavior, it will self extinguish. Dlohcierekim 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- No it won't. Look at Kmweber, that didn't self-extinguish. Xclamation point 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- A number of bureaucrats are already aware of DougsTech's point of view. If it comes down to one vote, they won't count his. Also, I believe that he expected people to be biased against CoM becuase of his nominator.--Iner22 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, people should be entitled to their opinions. However, trolling should not be tolerated, and this is a clear-cut case of trolling, those that defend Dougs really need to open their eyes. I have to wonder if they even take the time to look at his history, and his comments as a whole. Trolling RFA should not be aloud, Dougs is exploiting a a flaw in the process. This is nothing more than a troll trying to get attention by being disruptive. Landon1980 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- A number of bureaucrats are already aware of DougsTech's point of view. If it comes down to one vote, they won't count his. Also, I believe that he expected people to be biased against CoM becuase of his nominator.--Iner22 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- No it won't. Look at Kmweber, that didn't self-extinguish. Xclamation point 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- As much as we disagree with it, he is entitled to his own opinion. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, please take it to the main RFA talk page if you want to continue this discussion, rather than continuing it here. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but RFA is a discussion, therefore we are more than allowed to reply to the !votes for any reason. I agree the discussion is probably pointless, because trolling is for some reason tolerated nowadays. As long as Dougs keeps making these ridiculous blanket opposes, and continues trolling RFA people are going to comment. You should tackle the problem at it's source. Landon1980 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- By continuing to reply to every comment on every RfA is more disruptive to the nominees than his blanket oppose. ∗ \ / (⁂) 22:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe this is the first time I have ever replied to one of Dougs' !votes. Someone will always be replying to these, as long as he is allowed to troll RFA someone will reply. It is amazing how some of you are more worried about the people responding to the troll than the troll itself. The past discussions were had before some of Dougs' recent trolling, such as nominating someone for RFA. The old discussions leaned more towards a topic ban than allowing the trolling. The ones I looked at had around 60% support for a topic ban. Spare me the "take it to the main talk page" please. When I have the time I will present a case there. Landon1980 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not having the time to present a case there doesn't change the fact this is the wrong place to have this discussion. Please, take it elsewhere or drop it. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh please, I barely discussed it to begin with. Who the hell do you think you are? If I want to discuss an oppose !vote of an RFA I'm going to do it on the fucking talk page, I couldn't care less if you like it or not. Get a grip, what little discussion I had was completely harmless, and your confrontational attitude was completely uncalled for. In case you didn't know this is a fucking talk page. The fact that you made this reply 7 hours after my last post should have told you something. Like I said though, if I ever want to discuss a !vote this is where I'm going to do it. What I do and when I do it is none of your damn business. In the future, so you know, please understand you are under no obligation to reply, so if you see a discussion on the talk page you do not like feel free to ignore it. Dougs' proponents make their argument by stating he should be allowed to state his opinion and not be hassled for it, yet you attack me for a few lines on a talk page, unfuckingbelievable. Landon1980 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not having the time to present a case there doesn't change the fact this is the wrong place to have this discussion. Please, take it elsewhere or drop it. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe this is the first time I have ever replied to one of Dougs' !votes. Someone will always be replying to these, as long as he is allowed to troll RFA someone will reply. It is amazing how some of you are more worried about the people responding to the troll than the troll itself. The past discussions were had before some of Dougs' recent trolling, such as nominating someone for RFA. The old discussions leaned more towards a topic ban than allowing the trolling. The ones I looked at had around 60% support for a topic ban. Spare me the "take it to the main talk page" please. When I have the time I will present a case there. Landon1980 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've refrained from replying here for a while, but \ / is right. Landon, I agree that DougsTech's RfA behavior should be addressed, but the appropriate forum for doing so is WT:RFA, where a centralized discussion can be had, rather than repeating this discussion at every new RfA that comes up. In fact, that centralized discussion has already been had at WT:RFA (and I believe at ANI or RFC or something else) and the conclusion, as far as I can tell, was to let DougsTech do whatever he wants and let the crats ignore him. Rehashing the old discussion here isn't doing anything (other than make my heart jump into my throat every time I see an edit summary with the "oppose" section in it). Anyway, the bottom line is: yes, a discussion should happen, but that discussion shouldn't be here, and in any case the discussion already has happened. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- By continuing to reply to every comment on every RfA is more disruptive to the nominees than his blanket oppose. ∗ \ / (⁂) 22:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- <<EC>> Reply to X about Kurt. That's true, but no one ignored the behavior. Far from it. Kurt's behavior reinforcemnt went all the way to ArbCom and frequent nowhere discussions. The more we argue, the more we reward/reinforce the undesirable behavior. Oh, boy. Here we go again. Dlohcierekim 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but RFA is a discussion, therefore we are more than allowed to reply to the !votes for any reason. I agree the discussion is probably pointless, because trolling is for some reason tolerated nowadays. As long as Dougs keeps making these ridiculous blanket opposes, and continues trolling RFA people are going to comment. You should tackle the problem at it's source. Landon1980 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Go away. Tan | 39 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dloh. My 2¢: WP:DENY —Travistalk 15:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you are correct. The problem with that is new people having the same old argument. New editors seeing his !votes for the first time. As long as he is making those !votes someone will be replying to them. This should not be a option for dealing with trolls, we have a block button for that. Landon1980 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- One person commenting, pointing out that the discussion has been had, but discouraging further comment is enough. For example, while I moved this thread here, I left the other threads on the other active RfA's because in those cases, there was only one or two people commenting to DT with short notes. Here it became of feeding frenzy.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree, you did the right thing by moving it. Landon1980 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- One person commenting, pointing out that the discussion has been had, but discouraging further comment is enough. For example, while I moved this thread here, I left the other threads on the other active RfA's because in those cases, there was only one or two people commenting to DT with short notes. Here it became of feeding frenzy.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just dont count the votes simple or restrict the voting. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Really we are still going with this silly reason. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)