Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Drmies

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.

Keepscases neutral !vote

 * 1) 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)
 * May I ask why? Lady  of  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  &#38; 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  &#38; the soapdish '' 17:06, 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 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 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)
 * 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. Lady  of  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)