Drmies's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 04:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC):
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.
- 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)
- Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose.
Keepscases (
talk)
00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is supposed to be about the candidate...
Mato (
talk)
01:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe he's thinking along the lines of guilt by association...
Airplaneman
✈
01:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- Maybe he's thinking along the lines of guilt by association...
Airplaneman
✈
01:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- May I ask why?
Ladyof
Shalott
02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- True enough, interest in a topic does not necessarily indicate personal belief. (doubly speechless!) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The rationale for this vote warrants a civility warning.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The userboxes on WikiProject Atheism's page make it perfectly clear it is a hate group. Keepscases ( talk) 22:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This is supposed to be about the candidate...
Mato (
talk)
01:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
Ladyof
Shalott
22:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
-
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)
- Yeah, well... then both of'em must be blocked.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yeah, well... then both of'em must be blocked.
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
> haneʼ
23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
-
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)
- 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.
Ladyof
Shalott
22:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
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.