Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2

Edit count
Category talk:	3 Category:	8 Mainspace	6119 MediaWiki talk:	23 MediaWiki:	9 Portal:	75 Talk:	1514 Template talk:	377 Template:	720 User talk:	3124 User:	1107 Wikipedia talk:	172 Wikipedia:	3956 avg edits per page	2.40 earliest	21:10, 6 December 2005 number of unique pages	7184 total	17207

2005/12 17 	2006/1 	0 	2006/2 	0 	2006/3 	0 	2006/4 	2 	2006/5 	0 	2006/6 	16 	2006/7 	30 	2006/8 	7 	2006/9 	17 	2006/10 5 	2006/11	22 	2006/12 1 	2007/1 	82 	2007/2 	7 	2007/3 	56 	2007/4 	173 	2007/5 	87 	2007/6 	128 	2007/7 	311 	2007/8 	867 	2007/9 	287 	2007/10 331 	2007/11 206 	2007/12 214 	2008/1 	380 	2008/2 	837 	2008/3 	818 	2008/4 	1027 	2008/5 	1972 	2008/6 	2240 	2008/7 	2638 	2008/8 	2039 	2008/9 	84 	2008/10 1063 	2008/11 423 	2008/12 635 	2009/1 	185

Mainspace Talk:
 * 641	Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough
 * 160	Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom
 * 145	Monarchy of the United Kingdom
 * 123	Tudor dynasty
 * 103	Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll
 * 85	Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
 * 49	Princess Helena of the United Kingdom
 * 47	Line of succession to the British throne
 * 28	Hugh Audley
 * 27	Princess Elizabeth of England
 * 25	White Lodge, Richmond Park
 * 21	Agnes Howard, Duchess of Norfolk
 * 18	Albert, Prince Consort
 * 16	Tilgate Park
 * 15	Ranger of Windsor Great Park


 * 101	Main Page
 * 61	Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough
 * 32	Monarchy of the United Kingdom
 * 19	Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll
 * 17	International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo
 * 15	Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom
 * 12	Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont
 * 12	The Stolen Earth
 * 12	David Lochhead
 * 11	Royal Burial Ground
 * 10	Internet Watch Foundation
 * 9	Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel
 * 9	Line of succession to the British throne
 * 9	Apple
 * 8	Princess Alice of the United Kingdom

Category talk: Category: MediaWiki: MediaWiki talk:
 * 2	Hill forts in West Sussex
 * 2	Proxy check result templates
 * 2	Watchlist-details
 * 2	Disambiguationspage
 * 7	Watchlist-details
 * 2	Disambiguationspage
 * 2	Movepage-moved
 * 2	Recentchangestext

Portal:
 * 18	Royalty
 * 7	Royalty/Selected picture/2
 * 4	Royalty/Selected picture/Layout
 * 4	Royalty/Featured content
 * 3	Royalty/Selected biography/1
 * 3	Royalty/Selected article
 * 3	Royalty/DYK/1
 * 2	Royalty/Selected quote/7
 * 2	Royalty/DYK/Layout
 * 2	Royalty/DYK
 * 2	Royalty/Categories
 * 2	Royalty/Selected article/4
 * 2	Royalty/Selected article/1
 * 2	Royalty/Wikimedia
 * 2	Royalty/Selected picture

Template:
 * 267	Did you know/Next update
 * 68	Did you know
 * 47	Did you know/Next update/Time
 * 9	In the news
 * 6	In the news/Next update/Time
 * 6	African American topics sidebar
 * 5	Presidents of the Russian Federation
 * 5	Football
 * 4	WikiProject Education
 * 4	Physics
 * 4	Firstarticle
 * 3	House of Stuart
 * 3	Waldo-nav
 * 3	WPMED
 * 3	RFPP/doc

Template talk:
 * 196	Did you know
 * 8	Football
 * 6	Infobox Television
 * 4	POV
 * 4	WikiProject Video games
 * 4	NovelsWikiProject
 * 4	Blog
 * 4	WPMED
 * 3	Ethnic Macedonians
 * 3	Navboxes
 * 3	Unreferenced
 * 3	WPSchools
 * 3	B-Class
 * 2	S-line
 * 2	Citation

User:
 * 194	PeterSymonds/Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll
 * 136	PeterSymonds/Princess Helena of the United Kingdom
 * 127	PeterSymonds
 * 104	PeterSymonds/Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom
 * 88	PeterSymonds/Princess Alice of the United Kingdom
 * 85	PeterSymonds/monobook.js
 * 29	GlassCobra/Editor for deletion
 * 22	Possum/Admin coaching
 * 20	PeterSymonds/Sandbox
 * 17	PeterSymonds/Honours
 * 12	PeterSymonds/Talkarchives
 * 11	PeterSymonds/RfA criteria
 * 9	PeterSymonds/Current and future projects
 * 9	PeterSymonds/Status
 * 8	Garden/WikiCup/2009

User talk:
 * 277	PeterSymonds
 * 66	CTurnbull
 * 54	RyanCross
 * 31	Gary King
 * 16	Bedford
 * 15	Cameron
 * 15	Notindustry
 * 14	Sunsetsunrise
 * 13	Cbl62
 * 12	Tanthalas39
 * 12	Kanonkas
 * 11	Juliancolton
 * 11	Editorofthewiki
 * 10	Olaf Davis
 * 10	Boston

Wikipedia:
 * 892	Requests for page protection
 * 588	Help desk
 * 164	Requests for rollback
 * 140	Administrator intervention against vandalism
 * 121	Requests for permissions/Rollback
 * 108	Reference desk/Humanities
 * 92	Administrators' noticeboard
 * 87	Changing username
 * 86	Requested moves
 * 46	Recent additions
 * 42	WikiProject on open proxies
 * 40	Main Page/Errors
 * 27	Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds
 * 23	Miscellany for deletion
 * 22	Requests for rollback/Approved/June 2008

Wikipedia talk: Retrieved via this linkat Thu Jan 15 20:41:25 2009 GMT by NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * 26	WikiProject British Royalty
 * 24	WikiProject Royalty
 * 17	Requests for permissions
 * 12	Help desk
 * 9	Today's featured article/requests
 * 6	Did you know
 * 6	Requests for page protection
 * 5	Image renaming
 * 5	Changing username
 * 4	Requests for rollback
 * 4	WikiProject Video games/The Sims
 * 3	Attribution
 * 3	Twinkle
 * 3	Main Page/Tomorrow
 * 3	Request an account

Administrator Actions
As of 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

hounding Opposers
... the same folks who constantly yap about how RfA is so broken are the ones who hound Opposers. Insert exasperated curse word here. Why can't folks see that this is a part of the problem? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although I've probably opposed about half of the candidates I've voted on since I passed RfA and took an interest in such things (before then I had only voted in one RfA, because an editor I knew was standing), I kinda hate it because you can make yourself a target for all the candidate's friends.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's funny. The people who make RFA broken are the opposers :) So perhaps they need "hounding" (hounding is of course a complete exaggeration of reality).  Majorly  talk  03:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Majorly here. The reason often cited for why RfA is broken is because editors oppose over the slightest flaws. Extensive discussion about the oppose votes' rationale can perhaps like to a rethinking of positions, and a happier environment for all. Just think. How would RfA be if you couldn't respond to another user's vote. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually an interesting idea. Or if the job of responding was limited to the candidate and the nominator(s) ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * . I agree. In theory, I don't mind people making comments; it's the comments that are made.. the heckling, cajoling, bullying, what kind of an idiot are you, how dare you oppose, etc. But it will never stop. Sigh. Perhaps limiting the responses to the candidate and the nominator(s) is a very very good idea. Maybe a little sandbox page where others can suggest a response. I knoww it sounds childish, but.... it fits the situation. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 04:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But people oppose when the candidate responds to each opposer, since (somehow) it comes across as combative. That's a trap I fell into during my first RfB; I thought I was doing a good thing by responding to concerns as they were voiced, but it appeared to everyone else that I was badgering people. Very perplexing. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * People claim RFA is a !vote, so that means it's not a vote. Discussion is allowed. If you find your vote being questioned (or hounded if you like to exaggerate), perhaps it's an indication your reasoning simply isn't good enough. This is especially true when more than one person questions (or badgers) it (this is commonly known as a "witchhunt" or "lynch mob").  Majorly  talk  04:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or it could be an indication that the candidate has loyal friends. Which do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would stick up for every Tom, Dick or Harry who was getting unfair treatment by opposers. It's nothing to do with friends a lot of the time. It has everything to do with helping out a fellow user getting bashed by a load of opposers because they forgot to sign their candidacy, or they incorrectly reverted back to a vandalised version of a page a few months ago.  Majorly  talk  04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA is a discussion, not a !vote. There is nothing wrong with discussing opposes. The "B" word is thrown around way too lightly. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RfA is a popularity contest, disguised as a !vote, disguised as an election. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... not to be rude here... but Welcome to the real world... Since when was an election not disguised as a popularity contest?  Spending 125 million on a campaign for a 400,000/year job... hmmmmmm where have I seen this before?   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  10:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since people started believing in !votes. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Votes are evil –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)