Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Drmies

Drmies's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 04:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC):[reply]

Username:	Drmies
User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Aug 30, 2007 02:57:01
Unique pages edited:	32,306
Average edits per page:	2.24
Live edits:	67,744
Deleted edits:	4,733
Total edits (including deleted):	72,477

Namespace Totals


Article	39062	57.66%
Talk	1919	2.83%
User	811	1.20%
User talk	19315	28.51%
Wikipedia	5682	8.39%
Wikipedia talk	52	0.08%
File	110	0.16%
File talk	8	0.01%
MediaWiki talk	6	0.01%
Template	121	0.18%
Template talk	567	0.84%
Help	11	0.02%
Help talk	1	0.00%
Category	67	0.10%
Category talk	1	0.00%
Portal	7	0.01%
Portal talk	4	0.01%

Month counts

2007/08	8	
2007/09	31	
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	22	
2008/07	0	
2008/08	40	
2008/09	524	
2008/10	516	
2008/11	695	
2008/12	977	
2009/01	1163	
2009/02	1050	
2009/03	1017	
2009/04	1430	
2009/05	2357	
2009/06	1899	
2009/07	2138	
2009/08	1808	
2009/09	2282	
2009/10	1889	
2009/11	2200	
2009/12	2489	
2010/01	2607	
2010/02	2977	
2010/03	2442	
2010/04	2444	
2010/05	2661	
2010/06	878	
2010/07	2770	
2010/08	3691	
2010/09	2784	
2010/10	2973	
2010/11	2146	
2010/12	2330	
2011/01	2818	
2011/02	2623	
2011/03	2308	
2011/04	2757	
2011/05	2000	

Top edited pages

Sorry, but in order to consume my fair share of toolserver resources, Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits.

Keepscases neutral !vote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I was hoping not to get involved, but I am closing this discussion because it is not improving the RfA for Drmies, which is what this talk page is intended for. It is adding unnecessary drama to a process that is already stressful enough for an RfA candidate (speaking from experience). Discussions on the blocking of Keepscases or Snotty Wong can happen in the appropriate place, which is their talk pages. Discussions on the value of Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism and their userboxes can take place in the appropriate place, which is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism. Keepscases justification can be added to the RfA discussion page, as per the suggestion by LoS, which will give context to the Neutral vote. As Juliancolton said, the vote is neutral, and will have no effect on the closing 'crat's closure of this discussion, so prolonging this discussion will certainly not improve the RfA. I hope this closure is acceptable to everyone, now lets get back to work.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose. Keepscases (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be about the candidate... Mato (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he's thinking along the lines of guilt by association... Airplaneman ✈ 01:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, I agree with Mato. But if nominations and nominators aren't considered, then they don't belong here. Keepscases (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? LadyofShalott 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great opportunity to make a better resolution. Keepscases, I hope to soon see your better self. It would be a shame to not see your question for the candidate, which I rather like to anticipate. And then a fair and informed comment regarding the candidate being considered. My76Strat ^talk 04:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Atheism" is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist (although I don't know what LadyofShallot considers herself, she has multiple religious userboxes), but I'll never support anything with any connection to hate groups. Keepscases (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving Drmies a neutral !vote because the person who nominated him is an atheist??? I'm speechless... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, please don't jump to conclusions. I don't think Keepscases accused her of being an atheist. She is also a member of Wikiproject:Plant, but I wouldn't call her a plant. For one, she smells much better than most plants in my yard, and is much less prickly than our roses. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, interest in a topic does not necessarily indicate personal belief. (doubly speechless!) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for this vote warrants a civility warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares honestly? He's in neutral, the closing 'crat probably won't read his comment past the first four words, and I'm sure LoS knows people on the internet like to complain for no reason. Juliancolton (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't care until a whole group of editors were labeled as a "hate group". WTF? Will the next person who comes here and says "Nominator is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa and I don't vote for nigger-lovers" get away with it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The userboxes on WikiProject Atheism's page make it perfectly clear it is a hate group. Keepscases (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally say this is a little bit ridiculous. If you go through the list of supporters there seems to be quite a few people that would have been glad to nominate him as well so I really dont think you can say just because she was the one wha actually did it he doesnt deserve your support. Adwiii Talk 19:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close. Keepscases said what they wanted to say and presumably gave it some thought beforehand. Not much good can come out of questioning their motives, and I don't think much good would come out of their explanation anyway. I'm surprised at the comment, of course, but I'm going to keep my religious convictions to myself, and I hope Keepscases will have faith in me when I say that if given the bit I'll block people willy-nilly regardless of their religious beliefs. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand moving the majority of this discussion to the talk page, but I think that Keepscases's explanation should be copied back to the RfA page so that it can be given all due consideration. LadyofShalott 22:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snottywong made a personal attack, insulting Keepscases on account of religion on Keepscases's talk page. I would hope that unpopular views are protected by the community, especially now: May the immediate blocking for a religious insult be implemented? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well... then both of'em must be blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Keepskapes has a legitimate complaint about some of the user-boxes, associated with the Atheism project, at least with the "official" invisible pink unicorn userbox. I wish that Keepskapes would have raised the issue directly with the project, which is imho a reasonable and WP-compliant group in its editing procedures, and whom I trust would make some common-sense changes---like moving unrelated material to a secondary page.

I disagree strongly with Keepskapes's comments in this RfA on Drmies, for many reasons.

However, I am shocked at your analogy, and assume that you are not from the USA to realize how offensive your language is. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am. And the "hate-group" wording is just as offensive. There are others ways to utter one's disagreement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.