Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis 2

Opabinia regalis's edit statistics using X!'s edit counter as of 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC). (posted by North America1000 21:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

Funny, I just clicked on that link and it said she has 0 edits. Then I clicked on it about a minute later and it started working again -- weird.

Speaking of edit counts, some interesting comments are being made about them. Apparently 7k total edits and 100-200 edits/month is too few. I have heard elsewhere that 7000 is roughly the number you need in order to pass, but this no longer seems to be the case -- do you need 10k, perhaps? As for edits per month, it's a bit strange that this RFA is being opposed for too few per month and yet the last one was opposed for too many. What is the correct editing rate? ekips39 &#x2766; talk 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Something's wrong with the counter, I think. I had the same experience. Tried a few times, zero edits. Tried again, suddenly there were 7000+ edits. Tried myself, zero edits... --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I had checked a few recent RfAs and posting a static copy on the talk page doesn't seem to be A Thing anymore, so I didn't. But I think it's useful for exactly this reason, so here's the relevant XTools general stats in case the counter hiccups again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Live edits: 6,332

Deleted edits: 832

Total edits: 7,164

Edits in the past 24 hours: 7

Edits in the past 7 days: 74

Edits in the past 30 days: 234

Edits in the past 365 days: 1,100

Ø number of edits per day: 2.2

Live edits:

Unique pages edited: 2,739

Pages created: 709

Pages moved: 163

Ø edits per page: 2.3

Ø change per page (bytes): extended

Files uploaded: 11

Files uploaded (Commons): 78

(Semi-)automated edits: 202

Reverted edits: 3 Edits with summary: 6,315

Number of minor edits (tagged): 1,140

Admin actions

Block: 3 x

Protect: 17 x

Delete: 1,415 x

Import: 0 x

IP response to the answer to Question 14
I'll admit that I do not really know the procedure surrounding this, and a brief search did not come up with anything, but the response to Opabinia's answer to Question 14 should be struck, in my opinion, as that IP has been blocked as a proxy. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't strike it. The question was intended to be disruptive, but the way Opabinia handled it was exemplary. --Randykitty (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was proposing to strike. I wasn't proposing to strike the actual question, written by 115.156.213.132 (or Opabinia's answer, which I agree, was exemplary); I was proposing to strike the response to Opabinia's answer, written by 117.117.139.4, the IP which has since been blocked as a proxy. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have removed it.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 07:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see now, yes, that's perfect. Only had 1 cup of coffee yet when I made the above comment... ;-)

Randykitty is reminded that using admin tools (in this case page protection ) to gain advantage in a dispute (in this case, regarding the IP's comment which he wanted gone) is not allowed. Randykitty is also reminded that not everything that Randykitty disagrees with is 'trolling' and that referring to good-faith contributions (WP:AGF) as 'trolling' is in violation of WP:NPA. Randykitty is also instructed that indefinite page protection wouldn't be justified in this case even if page protection itself was called for.

Randykitty should immediately undo the page protection, and either explain the removal of the comment by addressing the edit summary of the edit that brought it back (which reads: 'drive-by' comments aren't against policy and the block had nothing to do with the comment anyway - also, deletion is not how you redact such comments') or failing that also undo Randykitty's revert of the comment. 223.87.3.145 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Randykitty's protection of the page. Reyk  YO!  10:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So do I. Calling upon an editor to involve herself is a disagreement between two other editors is not in good faith. AGF is not a suicide pact. As has been said above, Opabinia's reply was exemplary, and didn't deserve the comeback which has been very sensibly removed. Good call to semi-protect. --Stfg (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your endorsements of an indefinite and unnecessary semi-protection of a project page by an WP:INVOLVED admin have been noted. 223.87.3.145 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to be concerned by an IP editor acting all official and "noting" things? If you have a problem with the page being protected from anonymous troublemakers you can take the issue up at WP:ANI, where you will doubtless be told the same thing. Reyk  YO!  11:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ANI apparently is not enough. They are going to take me to ARBCOm once they find the time, see my talk page... Darn, just s..t my pants! --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Randykitty is reminded to keep their comments WP:CIVIL. Removing letters from an expletive doesn't make it any more palatable. Reyk is reminded that all editors are equal and that making condescending remarks concerning another editor's status as an unregistered user is counterproductive to the goal of building an encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect. 223.87.3.145 (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just not impressed with editors, logged in or not, being pompous and trying to make official-sounding pronouncements from a position of no authority whatsoever. Reyk  YO!  11:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reyk is reminded to keep their comments WP:CIVIL. Referring to another editor as 'pompous' is counterproductive to the goal of building an encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect. Reyk is also reminded that any editor that makes a comment based on Wikipedia's established practices (WP:POLICY) speaks from a position of authority. 223.87.3.145 (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had enough of this. You don't even have the decency to talk to me like I'm a person, instead of this legalistic "Reyk is reminded" hogwash, so don't lecture me about respect for other editors. I won't bother with you any more. Goodbye. Reyk  YO!  12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The question section is not intended as a back-and-forth; if a questioner wishes to comment on the answer(s) provided, they should do so in the comments or discussion section. I've set an expiry to the protection, all parties please keep this in mind once it expires. –xenotalk 13:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)