Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/5 albert square

From X!'s edit counter as of 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC). HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts? Username:	5 albert square User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Apr 19, 2009 20:37:19 Unique pages edited:	20,616 Average edits per page:	1.63 Live edits:	31,817 Deleted edits:	1,736 Total edits (including deleted):	33,553

Namespace Totals

Article	15558	48.90% Talk	684	2.15% User	435	1.37% User talk	13535	42.54% Wikipedia	1430	4.49% Wikipedia talk	36	0.11% File	45	0.14% File talk	1	0.00% Template	41	0.13% Template talk	20	0.06% Help	8	0.03% Help talk	1	0.00% Category	17	0.05% Category talk	2	0.01% Portal	3	0.01% Portal talk	1	0.00%

Month counts

2009/04	9	2009/05	0	2009/06	41	2009/07	59	2009/08	250	2009/09	685	2009/10	1315	2009/11	1257	2009/12	1138	2010/01	2050	2010/02	3749	2010/03	3983	2010/04	3013	2010/05	3276	2010/06	1911	2010/07	743	2010/08	271	2010/09	1654	2010/10	2385	2010/11	1571	2010/12	1400	2011/01	1057

Top edited pages

(hide)Article 204 - The_Bill 171 - Neighbours 65 - Stacey_Slater 64 - Dale_Smith_(The_Bill) 62 - EastEnders 56 - Samsung_Group 55 - List_of_The_Bill_characters 52 - List_of_EastEnders_characters_(2010) 49 - Lothian_Buses 45 - Tom_Anderson_(entrepreneur)

(hide)Talk 37 - Laurie_Brett 33 - Neighbours 30 - Samsung_Group 19 - The_Bill/GA2 18 - The_Bill 16 - Lothian_Buses 15 - Simon_Cowell 14 - Neighbours/GA1 12 - Rebecca_Robinson_(Neighbours) 12 - Stacey_Slater

(hide)User 75 - 5_albert_square 27 - 5_albert_square/monobook.js 18 - 5_albert_square/huggle.css 15 - Rodhullandemu/Archive/42 14 - 5_albert_square/EastEnders/Neighbours_sockpuppet_l... 8 - 5_albert_square/Sandbox 8 - 5_albert_square/Status 7 - Pingveno 7 - DGG 6 - MadManMarkAu

(hide)User talk 680 - 5_albert_square 345 - HJ_Mitchell 220 - JuneGloom07 192 - AnemoneProjectors 57 - ClueBot_Commons 34 - Courcelles 30 - Tedder 18 - Hamiltonstone 18 - Wayne_Slam 17 - Tommy2010

(hide)Wikipedia 703 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 231 - Requests_for_page_protection 213 - Huggle/Whitelist 40 - Pages_needing_translation_into_English 14 - New_admin_school/Deleting/delete 14 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 14 - Sandbox 11 - Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard 9 - Good_article_nominations 9 - Village_pump_(technical)

(hide)Wikipedia talk 6 - AutoWikiBrowser 4 - Requests_for_page_protection 3 - WikiProject_EastEnders 3 - WikiProject_Lists 3 - Selected_anniversaries/October_16 2 - WikiProject_Soap_Operas 2 - Selected_anniversaries/August_16 1 - Accuracy_dispute 1 - Vandalism 1 - Selected_anniversaries/March_18

(hide)File 8 - Thebillnewsequence3-1.jpg 6 - Neighbours_new_logo.jpg 4 - Ringo_Brown.jpg 3 - JHall2008.JPG 2 - Teasteps.jpg 1 - Charlie.png 1 - Elgoog_Logo.png 1 - Innisdale_Crest.png 1 - BBKing.jpg 1 - Dale_Smith.jpg

(hide)File talk 1 - Ringo_Brown.jpg

(hide)Template 5 - Latest_preview_software_release/Debian 2 - Post-it_medium/post_it 2 - MMA_Team_List 1 - Resolved/doc 1 - Db_doc 1 - ITV_News 1 - Image_class/doc 1 - Islam_by_country 1 - Infobox_chlorine 1 - Westlife

(hide)Template talk 14 - Did_you_know 2 - Infobox_soap_character_2 1 - Zucker,_Abrahams_and_Zucker 1 - The_Holocaust_(end) 1 - Latvian_parliamentary_election,_2010 1 - Brevard_County_Roads

(hide)Help 3 - Watching_pages 2 - Reverting 1 - Interlanguage_links 1 - Email_confirmation 1 - Section

(hide)Help talk 1 - Using_talk_pages

(hide)Category 2 - MSNBC 1 - English_cyclists 1 - Mountains_of_North_Carolina 1 - Japanese_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin 1 - Mountains_of_Costa_Rica 1 - Low-importance_Comedy_articles 1 - Rebellions_in_the_Ming_Dynasty 1 - Languages_of_Kuwait 1 - Mammals_of_Egypt 1 - Landforms_of_Nevada

(hide)Category talk 1 - Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece 1 - History_of_pederasty

(hide)Portal 1 - Atlas 1 - Energy/Title 1 - Current_events/2010_March_26

(hide)Portal talk 1 - Featured_content

Silly question
I cannot believe somebody asked whether 5 Albert Square will drink while editing! What difference does it make if he does? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you drink while editing, you could spill beer on the keyboard, which could start a fire, which could short out the Internet and then we'd have to go ask Larry Sanger if he had any backups of it, which would be awkward. 28bytes (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a fair question. Some people lose their inhibitions and make crazy edits when drunk, which can adversely affect the project. So yes it does make a difference. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IHMO It's a totally irrelevant question. Nobody is going to answer it honestly anyway and say "Of course I'm as pissed as a fart when I edit". I also take exception to the fact the poser of the regular silly question of the day on every RfA contributes absolutely nothing else to this encyclopedia whatsoever. See the full repertoire of this users questions, and then, please ask yourselves again if you really think they are appropriate, and if they were indeed posed during a state of sobriety. --Kudpung (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If 5 albert square is going to drink while she's an admin then surely she will have been drinking as a non-admin... and I've never seen her make crazy edits. I would assume she means she likes going to the pub. – anemone projectors – 09:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was tongue in cheek surely? It amused me no end....Like anyone could ever know if she'd been drinking anyway. lol GunGagdin Moan 09:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I don't think RFA is the place to be tongue in cheek, or is it? – anemone projectors – 15:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The risk of such questions is that some !voters might assume that there is "no smoke without a fire" and oppose because of it. Such a question is very useful if it has a relevant diff such as "you were desysopped on this other Wikimedia projects for blocking all their FA writers, since your explanation was Sorry last night's scrumpy was a bit stronger than I'm used to, how do we know this won't recur?". When there isn't such a relevant diff it is potentially unfair to the candidate as some voters might not realise it is a humourous question and assume that the question was relevant to the candidate. I've no objection to joke RFAs on April Fools day, but would suggest that editors who ask joke questions in serious RFAs try to avoid ones that might be misinterpreted as serious and unfounded accusations against a candidate.  Ϣere Spell  Checkers 01:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, despite my initially facetious response, I believe it was a completely serious question. There have indeed been admins who have done things on the project they oughtn't have, while drunk. Is a "This user drinks" userbox grounds enough to oppose? Doesn't look like anyone thinks so. Is it grounds enough to ask if they'll confine the drinking to "off-duty" hours? Well, one person thinks so, although the rest of us probably don't. So it's a seriously-intended question (I think), but I agree with Kudpung that it's probably pointless in that no candidate is likely to admit they plan to edit while intoxicated, even if they're a raging drunk. Anyway, the questioner asked, the candidate answered, the questioner supported, and all's right with the world. 28bytes (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Automated" edits
I find this whole "automated" edits thing rather odd, if I'm quite honest. I thought RfA had moved on from this, but it seems to be rearing its ugly head again. Why is editing with scripts considered a disadvantage? It just makes things quicker. Funnily enough, my number of automated edits is almost as high as 5 albert square's entire edit count, though my percentage is considerably lower than hers. My point is that it seems odd to consider it a bad thing that she has made prolific use of Huggle—I've lost track of the number of vandals I've blocked after she's warned or reported them, but she could have patrolled recent changes the old-fashioned way and not racked up all these horrible, horrible automated edits, but it would have been a hell of a lot slower and more tedious for the same end result. So perhaps we can move on from this nonsense and focus on things that actually reflect on her suitability to be an administrator? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't see what automated edits have to do with a candidate's suitability for adminship. If they /really/ bother someone, they should just look at their "real" edits. This does get kind of ridiculous... Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I recalled mentioning something about this way back here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, so far she's at 100%, so the rant might be premature (although I agree with the substance of it.) 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated tools assist heavily with jobs that NEED doing badly, so arguments against automated edits are futile. Orphan Wiki 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 100% agree, we should ditch the WP:Editcountitis, still she only has 73.64% automated, I had a lovely 85.25% at mine. Has anyone beaten that and become an admin... ;-)  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, I bet that attracted a fair few handbag wars.... Orphan Wiki 13:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

X!'s question

 * This oppose has left me genuinely confused. ( X! ·  talk )  · @074  · 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See talk page for response and any additional discussion, as this confusion does not come from the candidate herself. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll have to elaborate as to why you are confused for me to answer, as the declaration itself leaves nothing for me to go on, and I'm unwilling to guess what your source of confusion is. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's start with In my experience as a wikipedia editor for a number of years (your acount has only been registered for 4 months), then the bulk of administrators on wikipedia are simply editors who are willing to do more work than other editors, hence the comparison to a janitor with a WP:MOP (what does that have to do with 5 albert square?) then you go off on a bit of a rant about NACs at AfD and something about her making policy which is near incomprehensible. Then you criticise her for correctly stating that the majority of XfDs are closed by admins and say something about a lack of regard for consensus and then your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever, so I'm afraid X! isn't the only one genuinely confused. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to pick one: you can read my mind and the point I'm secretly making or you can't understand me at all. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I pick the latter. Do I get a prize if it's right? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's offered up both. I can't read your mind. But I can read that you're saying two contradictory things, and I'll guess you mean neither. So, please don't continue this here, as this is for discussing the RfA, not for your jokes. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the place for telling porkies either. Kleopatra, you just well and truly trouted yourself. Kudpung (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)