From X!'s counter at 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Username: Ucucha
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Mar 28, 2005 12:58:19
Unique articles edited: 2,997
Average edits per page: 2.30
Total edits (including deleted): 6,881
Deleted edits: 207
Live edits: 6,674
Namespace totals
Article	4024	60.29%
Talk	714	10.70%
User	155	2.32%
User talk	621	9.30%
Wikipedia	252	3.78%
Wikipedia talk	160	2.40%
File	3	0.04%
MediaWiki talk	2	0.03%
Template	88	1.32%
Template talk	531	7.96%
Category	118	1.77%
Category talk	1	0.01%
Portal	3	0.04%
Graph
Month counts
2005/03	24	
2005/04	91	
2005/05	21	
2005/06	76	
2005/07	38	
2005/08	137	
2005/09	53	
2005/10	50	
2005/11	43	
2005/12	54	
2006/01	18	
2006/02	30	
2006/03	69	
2006/04	46	
2006/05	48	
2006/06	51	
2006/07	5	
2006/08	33	
2006/09	16	
2006/10	10	
2006/11	21	
2006/12	30	
2007/01	26	
2007/02	16	
2007/03	15	
2007/04	13	
2007/05	11	
2007/06	9	
2007/07	2	
2007/08	48	
2007/09	46	
2007/10	17	
2007/11	5	
2007/12	8	
2008/01	5	
2008/02	26	
2008/03	44	
2008/04	64	
2008/05	30	
2008/06	195	
2008/07	130	
2008/08	18	
2008/09	29	
2008/10	6	
2008/11	3	
2008/12	2	
2009/01	36	
2009/02	12	
2009/03	17	
2009/04	3	
2009/05	4	
2009/06	4	
2009/07	19	
2009/08	82	
2009/09	223	
2009/10	1807	
2009/11	2112	
2009/12	621	
Logs
Pages moved: 236
Files uploaded: 2
Top edited articles
Article

    * 48 - Pseudoryzomys
    * 48 - Lundomys
    * 37 - Rodents_of_the_Caribbean
    * 33 - Bat
    * 24 - Mammal
    * 23 - Cologne_War
    * 17 - Rodent
    * 16 - List_of_mammals_of_Texas
    * 16 - Ekbletomys
    * 14 - Earless_Water_Rat


Talk

    * 15 - Bat
    * 14 - Dutch_grammar
    * 13 - Mammal
    * 13 - Homo_floresiensis
    * 9 - Mammal_classification
    * 9 - Murinae
    * 7 - Lundomys
    * 7 - Geoffroy's_Spider_Monkey/GA1
    * 7 - Pseudoryzomys
    * 7 - Galidiinae


User

    * 28 - Ucucha
    * 22 - Ucucha/Oryzomyini
    * 17 - Ucucha/monobook.js
    * 12 - Ucucha/Titles
    * 10 - Ucucha/vector.js
    * 9 - Ucucha/List_of_mammals
    * 7 - Ucucha/sandbox
    * 7 - Waerth/Unredirect_Dutch_Villages_Project
    * 4 - Ucucha/List_of_mammals/Chiroptera
    * 4 - Ucucha/25t


User talk

    * 43 - Aranae
    * 43 - Ucucha
    * 32 - Ucucha/Archive1
    * 27 - Ucucha/Archive3
    * 22 - Ucucha/Archive4
    * 20 - Ucucha/Archive2
    * 11 - Gdr/Archive_3
    * 7 - UtherSRG
    * 6 - Drmies
    * 6 - Derek_R_Bullamore


Wikipedia

    * 18 - Featured_article_candidates/Lundomys/archive1
    * 16 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 15 - Featured_article_candidates/Cologne_War/archive1
    * 12 - WikiProject_Rodents
    * 9 - WikiProject_Mammals
    * 9 - Featured_article_candidates/Pseudoryzomys/archive1
    * 8 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_11
    * 8 - Peer_review/Lund's_Amphibious_Rat/archive1
    * 8 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_18
    * 5 - WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Marsupial_poll


Wikipedia talk

    * 40 - WikiProject_Tree_of_life
    * 39 - WikiProject_Mammals
    * 24 - Did_you_know
    * 11 - WikiProject_Primates
    * 10 - WikiProject_Rodents
    * 10 - Featured_article_candidates
    * 6 - Non-free_content
    * 4 - WikiProject_Cetaceans
    * 4 - Twinkle
    * 3 - Editnotice


File

    * 3 - Skull_of_Oryzomys_hypenemus.png


MediaWiki talk

    * 2 - Titleblacklist


Template

    * 21 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1
    * 18 - Oryzomyini_nav
    * 13 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2
    * 4 - Mammal
    * 4 - Taxobox/sandbox
    * 3 - IUCNlink
    * 3 - Cladogram
    * 2 - Erethizontidae_nav
    * 2 - Rodents
    * 2 - Hamster


Template talk

    * 493 - Did_you_know
    * 35 - Taxobox
    * 2 - Human_Evolution
    * 1 - Hamster


Category

    * 3 - Unknown-importance_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - List-Class_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - Stub-Class_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - Unassessed_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - High-importance_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - Low-importance_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - Mid-importance_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - Start-Class_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - C-Class_Rodent_articles
    * 3 - Top-importance_Rodent_articles


Category talk

    * 1 - Canines


Portal

    * 3 - Mammals/Quality_content

1. Oppose per #8. Cool-down blocks are in fact appropriate at times. Also, the wording of the answer indicates that the nominee believes Wikipedia's so-called "policies" are somehow binding when in fact they're anything but. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Uh, since when are policies not binding? I'm sorry Kurt, but this oppose is entirely frivilous... The thing that should not be 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I'm with TTTSNB on this one. WP:COOLDOWN clearly says Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect (although it mentions that they can be used if the angry user is also being disruptive - but in that case, the block isn't to "cool down", but to prevent further disruption.) As to policies being binding or not: if you read the "policy box" at the top of any of the policies, it clearly shows that it should normally be followed. I would be grateful if you would give an example of a circumstance when a cool-down block would be appropriate (preferably with a real-life example, with diffs). -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Mr. Weber !votes this way all the time on RfAs. His personal beliefs about using blocks conflict with the current blockage policy says. TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 12:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Maybe it has to do with his block log. Tan | 39 14:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   You mean the blocks that were almost all removed within hours of being placed (and the ones that weren't, weren't because I was out of town at the time and not around to contest them) because the blocks were totally unjustified? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I know! Five separate blocks by five different admins. You are so misunderstood, and the policies rules descriptions of what has happened in situations in the past were completely misused. Wait, if we don't have rules, and lots of people don't want you doing the things you're doing, then... well, you see where I'm going with this. You do enjoy being the rogue, don't you? Tan | 39 15:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Perhaps Kurt can get a last word in in his own defense and then you can take this off topic conversation elsewhere. -- Aranae ( talk) 16:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   "Policies" have never been binding on Wikipedia. Those of us who have been around for awhile know that they are merely descriptions of what has typically happened in certain situations in the past, that we can take into account when dealing with a certain present situation but are absolutely not binding on us at all. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   You may be right. However if policies are not binding, and Admins. and Crates can act arbitrarily, an even unjustly . . . this could hurt Wikipedia. I like this candidate because he does not view himself as a Hitler or Stalin who is above policy. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Arbitrary action does not follow from the absence of binding "policies." We use our own judgment, as a community, of what is best to do in a certain situation, and the community servants are empowered only to enforce the community's will--not to act on their own initiative. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I see policies and guidelines as the codification of the community's will; when something is in a policy or guideline, it is prima facie evidence for it being (or, perhaps, in some cases, having formerly been) part of the community's will. Ucucha 16:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   The only thing they codify is what has previously been the community's will in an assortment of similar, but nevertheless individual, past cases. There's no reason we can't take them into consideration, but they're not binding on us, as each present situation we face is separate and stands on its own. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   ...except that very few people, if any, agree with you there, which defeats your own argument about how the community is affected by policies, or "policies", if you prefer that. Judging each event in a vacuum is chaos - which, I suspect, you would encourage here. I only find comfort in the fact that you are the Sarah Palin of Wikipedia - a rogue, a rebel, everyone likes to see what Kurt is going to do next - but ultimately irrelevant. Tan | 39 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Kurt's right. Our policies are not binding, and the extent to which we treat them as such, makes us more pathological as a community. WP:WIARM is a pretty good summary of the correct role of policy here. Arguing that policies are binding as statutory law opens the door to Wikilawyering, loopholes, and losing sight of the goal of the project: to write an encyclopedia, not to set up a legislative and judicial system. Those only exist insofar as they serve the goal, and they are instantly negated when they don't.

The position that I'm describing does not allow for arbitrary abuses, because those manifestly do not serve the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Our failure to acculturate a lot of users regarding the status of "rules" on Wikipedia is not an excuse to let the lawyers win. Ignore all rules is alive, real, and not any kind of joke. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

However, please take this "binding" argument in the context of the candidate's original response, for which Kurt opposed. The user stated that something should not be used, gave a reason, and then mentioned that this prohibition was stated in a policy. The user in no way stated that policies have any sort of real-life power, and escalating Kurt's argument so far as to say that anyone implied that they are "binding as statutory law" is disingenuous. Kurt is indeed "right", if you completely ignore the original premise. Tan | 39 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That's what I'm doing. I'm making a point not necessarily related top this RFA at all, about the role of policies on Wikipedia. I'm making that point here because I noticed the discussion, and had something to say about certain claims being made. My agreement with Kurt extends to his his claim that our policies are not binding rules, and I make no claim beyond that. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 20:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, okay. We are having this conversation on the talk page of an RfA, and the conversation did stem from an oppose Kurt made. Just so we're clear. Tan | 39 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yep. I haven't made any comment or claim about this RfA, or about Kurt's !vote as such. When I see someone talking about whether or not our policies are binding as statutes, I'm likely to weigh in because I see the legalistic approach as actively harmful to the project. It's something to think about... - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

This is all coming from an editor that thinks that everything that exists should have an article. After that, I asked him if he thinks that there should be an article about me because I exist and he said yes. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose - I'm not at all satisfied with your answer to my question on BLP AFDs. You said that you would look over the AFD, but during your review you would have not complied with the BLP policy to remove this. This article was closed as Delete, brought to DRV, where it was (by consensus) decided to be kept as deleted. Your reading of that AFD, leads me to think you wouldn't be ready to close an AFD yet. Although as you said you won't close any yet. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Per this comment at my talk page: "in some cases Wikipedia may in fact be doing subjects a favor in reporting what reliable sources are saying, instead of the gossip that may be the only thing people hear about marginally notable BLPs if Wikipedia does not have an article." I am even more worried about his grasp on the BLP policy. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Obviously he does not have experience at closing AfD, as he is not yet an Admin. What we are looking for are those qualities to be a good Admin. He has all of those and yes the intellect to do the Job. More important is attitude (see talk page). I like this candidate because he does not view himself as a person who is above policy. I respectfully disagree with the two editors who oppose and wish you would reconsider. Happy editing - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I, with all due non respect, don't respect your opinion. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   That's great Coffee, but sometimes you need to keep your opinions to yourself; with all due non-respect, I don't respect your choice of words in responding. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I wasn't being sarcastic Ed. Ret.Prof is not someone who's opinion I take into consideration, and I know several people who agree. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Yeah, but you don't have to punch him out in the middle of a RfA. If you can't keep your withering contempt to yourself, then at least put it on his talkpage. You're an admin, when civility fails you, at least exercise a little bit of the judgement your user-class is meant to have. Crafty ( talk) 07:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I'll make my opinions known wherever I want to. I don't know where some of you get off on the "civility" crap, but saying what my opinions are is not uncivil. Please stop trying to protect Ret.Prof's feelings and move on. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Actually your comment was uncivil. It was designed to demean and belittle him in front of his colleagues. You can express your opinion about this RfA without humiliating another editor who offered a well intentioned comment in a spirit of good faith. Poor form, Coffee. Crafty ( talk) 07:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I'm refraining from going into even further poor form. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   I'm sure everyone is shaking in their boots. I agree your comments have been quite tasteless on this RFA. Killiondude ( talk) 07:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Coffee, to be honest, you're acting like a jerk, and if you keep at it, it's going to make it so that people start to lose respect in you. I don't want to see that. Please try reconsider how you are acting in this matter... it will only help you in the long run. The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 07:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   TTTSNB, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, so the more people who comment on my words, makes no difference to me. I've made my opinions known. @Killiondude: Considering no one can see people's boots on a website... I presume you meant they were shaking in their gloves? Cause then at least we'd see poor spelling or something ;). -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   No, what you're doing is pretty clear to all of us. You're being mean. You're using this RfA to be beastly to another editor and it's all compounded by the fact that you're an Admin. You are conducting yourself in a dishonourable manner. By your actions you brand yourself as an individual of great and unyielding spite. Crafty ( talk) 07:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   You hit the nail on the head. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Agreed with Crafty. Coffee, I don't care what you think or believe about people, but administrators on this site are held to higher standards of conduct and grace. If you cannot hold yourself to this, you ought to resign the bit. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 08:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Oh please, that would have to be one of the most frivolous reasons to resign. Talking does not require the tools. Go run along and try to "recall" someone else now. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Yes, this is frivolous, but a continued pattern of comments like this is certainly not. You're an administrator who represents the site; your comments should reflect that. Stop being a dick and see what everyone else is trying to tell you. If you can't and continue to "demean and belittle" other editors, then you should seriously think about resigning. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   News flash, I plan on continuing to be blunt, I don't "represent the site", and guess what: I'm not going to resign anytime soon. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Which is fine, Coffee. But remember this: your conduct colours your adminship. You don't represent the project, but you do represent yourself. Don't be surprised if your ability to wield the mop has been compromised by the manner in which you have comported yourself today. Crafty ( talk) 08:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Oh jeez way to blow it out of proportions. I've said much worse, and probably will again in the future. Stop making this sound so profound. I expect to be able to use my tools just as easily tommorrow as I did today. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   For your sake Coffee, I hope that's the case. Regards, Crafty ( talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Don't lie, you personally hope that tomorrow I will block someone and then get blocked by someone else. Hate to break it to you, but my commentary doesn't affect my administrative decisions. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   Going on such a rant as this (and the others you freely admit are out there) may not "affect (your) administrative decisions" as you put it. For anyone who has read one of these rants it does call into doubt your ability to deal with editors without involving any personal bias. Flippant challenges to recall you completely fly in the face of what you wrote in your 2nd RfA:

   5. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?

   A: It seems like a good idea and I'd be happy to add myself to that category as soon as I become an admin. Because I can create my own standard on who can ask for a recall, I have no need to worry that the recall is being done even if I haven't done something wrong. [1]

   The tenth support of your 2nd RfA advised you to keep in mind primum non nocere. A reminder of that seems appropriate. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

   If you haven't noticed, I'm not open for recall anymore. And personally the idea of holding someone to what they said in an RFA is a joke, as is the recall process. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Does that mean that on your RfA you played us false ? ! ? - I will say no more as the matter has been brought before WP:WQA. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 22:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply