Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Daveydweeb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Category:	5
Image talk:	4
Image:	41
Mainspace	1415
Portal:	2
Talk:	365
Template talk:	2
Template:	20
User talk:	942
User:	351
Wikipedia talk:	103
Wikipedia:	1389
avg edits per article	2.05
earliest	11:10, 22 May 2005
number of unique articles	2261
total	4639

Editcount generated using Interiot's wannabe Kate's Tool. Nishkid64 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random diffs[edit]

From last 2000 edits, using ais523's edit counter. --ais523 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit count[edit]

Using ais523's edit counter. --ais523 08:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Article namespace: 1413
Manual vandalism reverts: 17
Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 134
Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 41
Removals: 79
Redirects: 18
XfD deletion-related tagging: 21
Speedy deletion-related tagging: 18
Deletion-related edit summaries: 1
Addition-related edit summaries: 68
Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 190
Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 22
Unrecognised edit summary: 784
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 9
No edit summary: 11
Talk namespace: 365
Manual vandalism reverts: 2
Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1
Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
Removals: 2
Speedy deletion-related tagging: 2
Addition-related edit summaries: 7
Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 181
Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 2
Unrecognised edit summary: 109
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 49
No edit summary: 9
User namespace: 351
Manual vandalism reverts: 6
Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 3
Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
Removals: 16
Speedy deletion-related tagging: 3
Addition-related edit summaries: 69
Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 6
Unrecognised edit summary: 180
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 8
No edit summary: 59
User talk namespace: 940
Manual vandalism reverts: 1
Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 7
Removals: 6
Welcomes: 74
Proposed deletion-related tagging: 1
XfD deletion-related tagging: 8
Speedy deletion-related tagging: 10
Deletion-related edit summaries: 3
Addition-related edit summaries: 27
Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 17
Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 18
Unrecognised edit summary: 704
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 26
No edit summary: 30
Wikipedia namespace: 1385
Manual vandalism reverts: 2
Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1
Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 3
Removals: 16
Redirects: 8
XfD deletion-related tagging: 24
Speedy deletion-related tagging: 6
Deletion-related edit summaries: 181
Addition-related edit summaries: 324
Non-deletion voting-related edit summaries: keep: 24, oppose: 23, support: 97
Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 6
Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 1
Unrecognised edit summary: 626
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 31
No edit summary: 12
Wikipedia talk namespace: 103
Addition-related edit summaries: 10
Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 1
Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 2
Unrecognised edit summary: 84
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 5
No edit summary: 1
Image namespace: 41
Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1
Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
Removals: 1
Addition-related edit summaries: 18
Unrecognised tag ({{ in summary): 2
Unrecognised edit summary: 18
Image talk namespace: 4
Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1
Unrecognised edit summary: 1
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 1
No edit summary: 1
Template namespace: 20
Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 2
Removals: 1
Addition-related edit summaries: 3
Unrecognised edit summary: 12
Edits to sections, with no further summary: 1
No edit summary: 1
Template talk namespace: 2
Unrecognised edit summary: 2
Category namespace: 5
Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1
Addition-related edit summaries: 1
Unrecognised edit summary: 3
Portal namespace: 2
Unrecognised edit summary: 2

Total: 4631

Response to Doug Bell[edit]

  1. Neutral leaning support. No reason not to support, but the fact that the nominee is a member of Esperanza and that ⅔ of the support votes are from Esperanza members is enough to keep me on the fence for now. I'm not assuming any bad faith or collusion here, it's just enough to make me uncertain. —Doug Bell talk 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's Esperanza got to do with anything? If people want to support David, and be a member of Esperanza at the same time, they can. This is about the candidate, not who is supporting him. --Majorly 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying Esperanza does have anything to do with this, it's just that the rapid accumulation of supports combined with the ratio that are Esperanza, especially relative to the other RfAs listed, was enough to cause me to pause for consideration before supporting. That's all, nothing more. I tried to make it clear before that I'm not assuming anything is amiss here, it was just odd enough that I need to watch and think about this more. —Doug Bell talk 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's a new one, the Esperanza cabal. I think you need to take into account the shear amount of people that are in Esperanza, I mean a 2/3 of Wikipedians are in it. Also, I don't think that takes anything away from the candidate. Yanksox 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this is a new one. We have no control over voters. Who do you think we are, the George Bush administration? As per Yanksox, a big percentage of editors are in Esperanza, including most of the good ones which take part in a lot of voting & know which editors would make great admins. Thanks anyway Doug for voting. Spawn Man 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2/3??? You must be kidding!! 713 out of 2,867,961 Wikipedians is not 2/3... --Majorly 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to also take in the fact that we are talking about active Wikipedians in good standing. That big number shrinks down quite a bit. Yanksox 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a moot point, really. If Doug feels uncertain about his decision that's fine by me. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just have to point out that my candidate is quite a bad Esperanzian. He rarely sends out hugs, or bars of chocolate, or fluffy rainbow gifs to his rabid EA mailing list. Nor have I seen him barking at the coffee lounge or handing out barnstars like there's no tomorrow. Punish him for being a terrible Esperanzian, if you must, but he's a very good candidate for adminship. C'mon Doug :) riana_dzasta 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's right, I'm terrible. I never smile, either. Not even in real life. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (2x edit conflict with the two preceding posts) Methinks some protest too much. I said it was odd and I needed to think about it. Obviously, nowhere near ⅔ of active Wikipedians are members of Esperanza—that is dramatically overstated, probably by more than one order of magnitude. I think I'm allowed to state my observation and hold off on supporting the nomination. None of the other 9 nominations at the time I decided to be neutral has the same concentration of Esperanza support, and only one of the other nominations was a member of Esperanza. The reaction to my neutral leaning support seems out of proportion, except from the nominee himself, which also seems odd. —Doug Bell talk 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's because it's an extremely unusual reason to remain neutral in an RfA, and people are understandably uncomfortable with it. Again, I'm absolutely fine with this, but I'd be grateful if people leave this !vote alone; Doug's entitled to his opinion, and he's hardly been unfair to me. Thanks. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (2x edit conflict) Apologies, Doug, you're allowed to call it as you see it, of course. I am not attempting to change your !vote, merely pointing out that the candidate is hardly an active member of Esperanza, and I'm not honestly sure why that is affecting his RfA. riana_dzasta 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. We all love you Doug, I think. also, what's with the "!" before the "vote"???!!! It's driving me crazy. ;) Spawn Man 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a vote until it's a !vote. (Comments/opinions, no voting). riana_dzasta 03:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, votes (as in politics) are counted and whichever side gets the most wins (although this situation has various refinements in various political systems that makes it more complicated). An !vote is a Wikipedia-specific concept (AFAIK) where the quality of the opinion (in some sense) is taken to account; this is the system used in processes like AfD, where a good argument will trump a head-count. As RfA is mostly percentage-based, and votes need no reasons at all (see the support section for any RfA), I'd argue that RfA does use votes rather than !votes, but this is an issue that's been argued at length on WT:RFA and hasn't really got anywhere. --ais523 09:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    ??? - Still confused... - But never mind though...
    Can everyone please let this one go? Doug's stated his reasoning, and that ought to be enough. It's not as though it's going to make the slightest portion of difference anyway. People should be free to express their feeling at RFA without getting jumped on. Yes, I agree, there are rather a lot of green Es. However, this one isn't an Esperanza cabal/social RFA, but I have seen quite a few that are! Moreschi 09:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Yanksox. riana_dzasta 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Daveydweeb&oldid=1166668560"