Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moreschi

Important
It should be noted that an outside forum has attempted to influence this RFA. Ral315 (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If articles follow Wikipedia policy, then they don't get deleted. Simple as that. Also if you will turn up here out of the blue from a site that has launched a foul-mouthed and abusive appeal for vote-stacking, don't complain about the less than gemutlich reception you get. EOD --Folantin 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that someone who writes Deletion on his flag and has a rather narrow minded view of what should be in the Wikipedia shouldn't be in charge of anything. This is just like putting Hitler in charge for a museum of modern Arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ze Kohl (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for bringing in Godwin's law so quickly. Mak (talk)  19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User's only edit too. I mean, if you're going to do this sort of thing, put a bit of effort into it, please. --Folantin 19:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, i simply want this discussion to come to an end, Moreschi isn't a good pick for a Administrator imo and /m/ is not a place to drag the discussion to.
 * He's not being considered for moderator but rather administrator. —Doug Bell talk 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Doug. You can't expect our friend to know things like that. After all, he's a complete stranger to Wikipedia and is probably only here because of the link at the top of the page. --Folantin 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good thing that you know how familliar i am with the Wikipedia, also note that i am not your friend.
 * Excuse me for choosing the wrong words before, Folantin, but i really don't like your attitude towards who may/should contribute to the Free encyclopedia.
 * Still on my side its EOD, nitpick or shun me all you want, just please reconsider the elitist behaviour that has been acted out by the deletionists. As much as they help to keep the Wiki trimmed, deleting stubs is fine, while radom deletion of Articles that had a serious amount of work involved is a whole different thing.
 * Also please note that i didn't participate in the vote, if i was just another /m/ drone i would have made myself an ass over there.
 * I just want the Administration to overthink the heavy influence the Deletionists will have on the Wikipedia if further supported, it is self-censorship, if that is what you want for the Wikipedia, go on i won't mind. I still have the German Wikipedia that i can go to.
 * Also thanks for correcting me Doug.
 * Opinions are just that and they should not be of matter when it comes to deciding what is to be in the Wikipedia.
 * I still hope Godwins Law works in the same ways as it does in Usenet, with a quick EOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ze Kohl (talk • contribs)
 * That might be how AfD should work, but that doesn't mean it's how it does work. Bringing in an admin with an open bias toward deletion will just make it worse. Redxiv 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to AGF and assume that I do not have an open bias towards deletion, just an open bias towards adherence to policy? That's my reponse to Redvix: to everything else, I would appreciate it if there everyone DFTT. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't often participate in RfAs, but does the off-wiki discussion and resultant semi-protection happen a lot with them? Just curious. -- Kyok o  00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not common, but neither is it all that uncommon. Just guessing, but maybe happens about once a month. —Doug Bell talk 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing statistics
Dynamic statistics available here.

Image:                            2 Mainspace:                     1657 Portal:                           1 Talk:                           410 Template talk:                    4 Template:                         5 User talk:                      841 User:                           166 Wikipedia talk:                 263 Wikipedia:                     1141 avg edits per article             2.68 earliest 12:31, 29 March 2006 number of unique articles	1674 total                          4490 2006/3                            2 	2006/4                            41 	2006/5                           169 	2006/6                           229 	2006/7                           519 	2006/8                           138 	2006/9                           321 	2006/10                          298 	2006/11                          770 	2006/12                          715 	2007/1                          1074 	2007/2                           214  riana_dzasta 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)