Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Werdna 3

Edit count for Werdna[edit]

User:Werdna

    run at Wed May 21 06:15:44 2008 GMT

Category:              1
Help:                  1
Image:                 5
Mainspace              1342
Portal:                33
Talk:                  82
Template talk:         1
Template:              75
User talk:             1320
User:                  165
Wikipedia talk:        145
Wikipedia:             1530
avg edits per page     1.84
earliest               01:53, 25 July 2005
number of unique pages 2549
total                  4700

2005/7   3
2005/8   73
2005/9   28
2005/10  7
2005/11  61
2005/12  79
2006/1   674
2006/2   77
2006/3   472
2006/4   308
2006/5   348
2006/6   184
2006/7   135
2006/8   89
2006/9   302
2006/10  233
2006/11  20
2006/12  45
2007/1   94
2007/2   28
2007/3   1
2007/4   2
2007/5   0
2007/6   0
2007/7   0
2007/8   1
2007/9   0
2007/10  0
2007/11  11
2007/12  27
2008/1   5
2008/2   25
2008/3   203
2008/4   778
2008/5   387

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)

                 Mainspace
44 Knox Grammar School
23 Spring project
19 Weapons in Deus Ex
9  List of warez groups
8  Korean War
7  Western Reserve Academy
7  History of Australia
7  Speech Application Programming Interface
7  CityRail
7  Deus Ex
7  List of common file extensions
6  Penis
6  Far Away
5  Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive
5  Bandwidth test

                    Talk:
4 Teratophilia
4 History of the board game Monopoly
4 Daniel Pearl
3 Knox Grammar School
3 Deus Ex
3 Qur'an
3 Charles Kingsford Smith
2 Peter F. Paul
2 Laser applications
2 Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories
2 DotNetNuke
2 Linda Frum
2 Far Away (Ayumi Hamasaki song)
2 Pinhole camera
2 Hannover 96

            Portal:
6 Harry Potter
6 Harry Potter/Selected article
4 Scientology/Intro
3 Harry Potter/Things you can do
2 Harry Potter/WikiProjects
2 Harry Potter/Selected picture

        Template:
32 Werdnabot
5  AR report
4  Prod-notability
4  Werdnabot/doc
4  Vandalism information
4  Resume
2  Highrfc-loop
2  Cent
2  Welcomeg
2  Check talk
2  Usercheck

                  User:
32 Werdna/monobook.js
17 Werdna/sig.js
5  Werdna/Test
5  Werdna
4  Werdnabot/Interface/Archivefromsummary
4  Scepia/novanity
4  Werdna/huggle.css
4  Werdnabot/Interface/Timestampregex
4  Werdnabot/Interface/Months
4  Werdnabot/Interface/Archivetosummary
4  Werdna/nofakemessages.js
4  Werdnabot/Interface/Syntax
4  Kmweber/Adminship
3  Werdnabot/Interface/Incrementsummary
3  Werdnabot/Interface/Timestampmonthtype

           User talk:
313 Werdna
18  AmiDaniel
16  Jimbo Wales
13  Werdna648/Archive/Archive 01
12  202.182.131.21
11  Tawker
10  MarcyuOld1
9   147.10.153.84
8   Phaedriel
8   InShaneee
8   Werdna648/Archive
7   Mister Pibbles
7   Coren/Bot policy
7   King of Hearts
6   198.110.50.253

                      Wikipedia:
72 Bots/Requests for approval
60 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
57 Village pump (technical)
45 Administrator intervention against vandalism
34 Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA
31 Administrators' noticeboard
29 Requests for adminship/Werdna648
19 Village pump (policy)
19 Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (3rd nomination)
19 Bots/Requests for approval/Approved
17 Requests for adminship/Werdna 2
16 Requests for adminship/Werdna
16 Requests for comment/Lupo
15 Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2
14 Blocking policy proposal

            Wikipedia talk:
45 Requests for adminship
11 Bot Approvals Group
11 Bots/Requests for approval
8  Bot policy
7  Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot
6  RFA as RFC/Werdna
6  Automatic edit summaries
6  Blocking policy proposal
5  RFA as RFC
5  Requests for comment/Lupo
4  Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA
4  Criteria for speedy deletion
3  Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2
3  IP block exemption
3  Requests for comment/Linuxbeak

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1]

The edit count was retrieved from this link at 06:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC).

Harassment[edit]

Mike H being ejected from this discussion some time earlier today, or something. Nick (talk)

I'm being abused and harassed for my oppose vote, despite its solid reasoning and my willingness to patiently defend it in good faith. I'd like Mike Halterman to be ejected from this discussion. --Duk 13:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, drop the club and slowly walk away from the horse carcass. henrik•talk 14:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was dreadful reasoning. I hope the closing bureaucrat ignores it, and your bad faith comments. Al Tally ^talk 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh, Jesus. Ejected? I don't know what to say, other than laughter, at this point. Mike H. Fierce! 18:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respect other's voice in the discussion[edit]

Even if you strongly disagree with another user, please respect their voice in the discussion. Wikipedia needs users to weigh in and state their opinion, even if unpopular, if we are going to make sound decisions. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the vote is made in bad faith, unhelpful to the discussion, and irrelevant about whether the candidate will make a good admin? That's the case with this one. Al Tally ^talk 22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine to make a rebuttal comment or two, but I don't think it is wise to stifle discussion or disparage a comment made when the user is discussing a legitimate concern. I'm talking to both side here. The 'crats are well able to read comments and decide how much weight to give to them. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's something that applies to Duk as much as to everybody else who disagreed with his comment. Duk, in making a comment that is in no way related to the candidate, but rather, which continues a festering disagreement he has with a completely separate individual, is not respecting the comments made by over 150 editors which are based on the candidate in question (be they supporting, opposing or neutral viewpoints). I remain deeply disappointed that a user would choose an RfA to continue a rather short and fairly pointless dispute about bot policy, especially given the previously high regard that user was held in by the community. Nick (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone needs to back off, I think. Positions are clear. I'm highly skeptical that any benefit will come from further comments about this matter. This discussion has gone far off track. I'm done commenting myself. Good night, all. ;-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, you are wrong to say my oppose is in no way related to the candidate. It was based solely on the candidate and his behavior - I explained in depth how and why. --Duk 02:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Al tally~~Majorly, my vote was made in good faith. I felt that Werdna shirked his duty and blew me off. That's why I opposed. This has to do with Werdna and no other person or dispute. --Duk 02:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]