Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Excirial 2

Username:	Excirial User groups:	rollbacker First edit:	Oct 05, 2007 14:49:53 Unique articles edited:	37,387 Average edits per page:	1.81 Live edits:	54,931 Deleted edits:	12,624 Total edits (including deleted):	67,555

Namespace totals

Article	23537	42.85% Talk	397	0.72% User	1097	2.00% User talk	26569	48.37% Wikipedia	3028	5.51% Wikipedia talk	102	0.19% File	55	0.10% File talk	3	0.01% Template	70	0.13% Template talk	11	0.02% Help	5	0.01% Help talk	3	0.01% Category	28	0.05% Portal	25	0.05% Portal talk	1	0.00%

Month counts

2007/10	4111	2007/11	5604	2007/12	0	2008/01	1564	2008/02	1853	2008/03	819	2008/04	678	2008/05	5374	2008/06	1351	2008/07	3174	2008/08	1775	2008/09	2374	2008/10	1918	2008/11	34	2008/12	777	2009/01	934	2009/02	0	2009/03	2	2009/04	2058	2009/05	3576	2009/06	1682	2009/07	0	2009/08	1	2009/09	0	2009/10	1785	2009/11	100	2009/12	0	2010/01	0	2010/02	0	2010/03	12820	2010/04	567

Top edited articles

Sorry, but in order to consume my fair share of toolserver resources, Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits. Retrieved from X!'s counter at 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Fastily's oppose

 * Weak Oppose. Per weak nom, but mainly per high proportion of automated to non-automated edits.  Per my RfA criteria, I do not support anyone with more than 35% automated edits.  Best of luck to you,  F ASTILYsock (T ALK )  20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  While the percentage is more or less arbitrarily based on my own opinion, I do not believe in a double standard.  Therefore, I respectfully recuse. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 04:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering how that affects the quality of their contributions and editing experience... Airplaneman   ✈  20:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I really wished i could say that i would take this as an advice to improve myself, but in this case i fear i cannot do so. A day of vandalism patrol can easily result in over 1.000 edits being made, an in fact my record for a single day is nearly twice that amount. To emphasize this: Last month i have been quite busy reverting vandalism, and as a result i made around 12.000 edits on that activity alone. As a result i would have to make over 22 thousand non automated edits now to meet this criteria which is nigh impossible, unless i spend the next couple of years editing manually and without any further vandalism or new page patrol.
 * I would therefor say that this criteria effectively oppose's anyone who has ever been (semi) active as a vandalism patrol or new page patrols as these activities tend to skyrocket edit count (And thus the percentage of automated edits). At the same time these activities cannot be done manually as doing it manual would mean the amount of work done would be rather meaningless. Im not asking you to reconsider your vote, but i am asking you to reconsider this criteria as it likely has an underlying reason. My guesses are that they could either be a non well rounded editing experience or the risk that one might make to many mistakes due to assembly line like work. Those would be two arguments i can try to improve on, or i can at least argue about them. But i am afraid i can do little with or about a percentage which increases every time i do my preferred wikipedia activity.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is odd criteria, considering when you average your own automated edits % (with your main account and sock), it comes to about 42% - just 2% less than the candidate. Besides, where did you get 35% from? Seems very arbitrary and picky. As Airplaneman remarked, what about looking at quality rather than quantity?  Aiken   &#9835;   21:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only shudder at the effect this would have on vandalism patrolling on the encyclopedia if everyone above shared the same criteria. All of the hard work that so many have put into Wikipedia could be done overnight if we quit vandalism patrolling with automated tools. There's nothing good that comes from discouraging good work. Shadowjams (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest problems with automated tools, even the crop of reasonably high-quality tools currently available, is the equal ease of selecting the right or wrong edit to revert, the right or wrong editor to warn, and the right or wrong warning template to apply. That said, I think anyone with below a 2% error rate using automated tools is taking the time to review suspect edits, and decide if they're going to benefit Wikipedia as a body of work by reverting or rolling back those edits.  It's not something that can be taught; as has been attributed to Will Rogers, good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.  The key is a positive learning curve, and a willingness to admit and correct errors.  --Alan (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Being active in vandal patrol (and new page patrol occasionally), I can say that this activity (which is very important and crucial to maintaining the encyclopedia) will make the number of automated edits skyrocket, weather it is due to using huggle for reverting the vandalism itself or it is from using twinkle to warn the vandals. The bottom line is, any user active on vandal patrol will have a large number of automated edits, and it should not be used against them in an RfA. Immunize (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hate to jump on on opposers, but I'm genuinely curious as to where this arbitrary percentage threshold comes from. There are several valid reasons for opposing candidates with lots of automated edits, generally because a candidate with 10k edits, 9.5k of which are made with Huggle probably doesn't have very broad experience. In this case, Excirial has thirty seven thousand non-automated edits - barring some kind of philosophical objection to the very concept of Huggle, I can't see where the rationale actually comes from, and your RfA criteria page doesn't actually elaborate as to why you find this a problem. ~ mazca  talk 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I link to the other fifty-six discussions we've had on this precise topic? Some people just have pet criteria, regardless of logic. Let's let it go. Tan   &#124;   39  15:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an observation, I see Excirial has made 30,164 automated edits out of a total of 67,810 edits. So presumably, if he had made 6,431 fewer auto edits (but the same number of manual edits), then he would have got Fastily's support? That to me shows the absurdity of insisting on an arbitrary auto-percent criterion that takes no account of an editor's total edit count. (For an editor with a small number of edits it might make sense, but not for someone with this number). -- Boing!   said Zebedee  18:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved bulk of discussion here. – xeno talk 18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:100
Hurrah04:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
 * Who cares?  Aiken   &#9835;   13:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that really necessary? You might not care, but it's an achievement. You like folk music - who cares? You play Tetris - who cares? As it happens, I think those are perfectly valid bits of information to have on your user page even if neither bit of information seems to influence your editing - but how  many people on Wikipedia would be bothered by the knowledge? It's the same with WP:100: you might not care about it (and realistically, in the current RfA environment, almost all successful candidates need to get 100+ !votes to succeed), but  it is still something which at least 100 Wikipedians agreed upon - which with the way that Wikipedia operates, is an achievement. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't go telling everyone this information :-) It's a great thing of course, but every person can easily see it's got to 100 just by looking at the page. No need to announce it here with a one-word section "Hurrah". I could also ask "Was that really necessary?" as well ;-)  Aiken   &#9835;   15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * eeeewwwwwwww. 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)