Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/R 2

message: 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 Interiot's wannabe Kate tool. WjBscribe 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit stats

message: 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)
replies: text: The automatic nomination template created that and it's being worked on. Note that as of 01:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of prior RfA

message: 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)
replies: text: My opinion: Technically it probably isn't supposed to happen, but no harm done. Newyorkbrad 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions before transclusion? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion moved from the nomination page