Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman

Edit stats from X!'s Edit Counter at 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	GiantSnowman User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer First edit:	Feb 28, 2006 12:58:22 Unique pages edited:	19,347 Average edits per page:	2.16 Live edits:	39,218 Deleted edits:	2,579 Total edits (including deleted):	41,797

Namespace Totals

Article	24148	61.59% Talk	3586	9.15% User	390	0.99% User talk	2168	5.53% Wikipedia	5265	13.43% Wikipedia talk	1749	4.46% File	4	0.01% Template	1110	2.83% Template talk	485	1.24% Category	123	0.31% Category talk	181	0.46% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2006/02	3 	2006/03	55 	2006/04	1 	2006/05	0 	2006/06	0 	2006/07	0 	2006/08	0 	2006/09	244 	2006/10	423 	2006/11	420 	2006/12	194 	2007/01	153 	2007/02	243 	2007/03	187 	2007/04	345 	2007/05	138 	2007/06	98 	2007/07	107 	2007/08	145 	2007/09	139 	2007/10	170 	2007/11	297 	2007/12	158 	2008/01	173 	2008/02	668 	2008/03	414 	2008/04	653 	2008/05	1140 	2008/06	883 	2008/07	140 	2008/08	291 	2008/09	556 	2008/10	737 	2008/11	1072 	2008/12	540 	2009/01	618 	2009/02	995 	2009/03	1323 	2009/04	873 	2009/05	1872 	2009/06	1392 	2009/07	1489 	2009/08	1564 	2009/09	2641 	2009/10	3506 	2009/11	1990 	2009/12	737 	2010/01	5 	2010/02	2 	2010/03	1 	2010/04	290 	2010/05	957 	2010/06	511 	2010/07	504 	2010/08	460 	2010/09	817 	2010/10	884 	2010/11	2171 	2010/12	1848 	2011/01	972

Erb
I'm a bit miffed by the !votes here (if you couldn't tell). I think Smokey Joe nailed it on his support. These are very weak point for opposes and feel a lot like people are trying to make a WP:POINT. RfA is a pretty bad place for that. Hobit (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having different criteria for adminship than you does not constitute disruption of the 'pedia. It's not pointy everytime someone makes a point; we are allowed to think here (I think, perhaps there is a guideline against it that I was unaware of, in which case, oops). I can understand the desired to throw a capitalized shortcut link in one's argument though, as that does seem to be SOP. Can a statement ever really have weight on the 'pedia without a good acronym? --Danger (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't mind folks having different criteria, I do wonder if those criteria are objectively reasonable in this case. I'd hope the main criteria is "will be a net benefit" and I'm not seeing his answers to even come close to indicting otherwise given his history... Ah well, reasonable people apparently disagree. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)