Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sergecross73

Username:	Sergecross73 User groups:	rollbacker First edit:	Dec 12, 2008 16:23:33 Unique pages edited:	2,165 Average edits per page:	7.57 Live edits:	16,174 Deleted edits:	209 Total edits (including deleted):	16,383

Namespace Totals

Article	11753	72.67% Talk	1834	11.34% User	224	1.38% User talk	1174	7.26% Wikipedia	756	4.67% Wikipedia talk	235	1.45% Template	153	0.95% Template talk	45	0.28%

Month counts

2008/12	34	2009/01	32	2009/02	4	2009/03	5	2009/04	6	2009/05	7	2009/06	14	2009/07	25	2009/08	12	2009/09	19	2009/10	13	2009/11	11	2009/12	14	2010/01	23	2010/02	58	2010/03	108	2010/04	159	2010/05	208	2010/06	234	2010/07	131	2010/08	219	2010/09	240	2010/10	302	2010/11	413	2010/12	417	2011/01	519	2011/02	503	2011/03	399	2011/04	537	2011/05	469	2011/06	570	2011/07	329	2011/08	349	2011/09	472	2011/10	612	2011/11	794	2011/12	930	2012/01	742	2012/02	831	2012/03	702	2012/04	636	2012/05	656	2012/06	734	2012/07	619	2012/08	658	2012/09	621	2012/10	601	2012/11	183

Top edited pages

Article 336 - List_of_Sonic_the_Hedgehog_video_game_characters 278 - Nintendo_3DS 233 - Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(series) 233 - Sonic_the_Hedgehog_4:_Episode_I 215 - List_of_Nintendo_3DS_games 192 - Sonic_Generations 181 - Sonic_Colors 167 - List_of_Wii_U_games 151 - Lo-Pro 140 - PlayStation_Vita

Talk 182 - Nintendo_3DS/Archive_4 93 - Sonic_Generations 77 - History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation) 73 - Wii_U 61 - Nickelback 54 - Nintendo_3DS 48 - The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Skyward_Sword 47 - Tails_(character) 41 - Skull_Kid 37 - Teargarden_by_Kaleidyscope

User 214 - Sergecross73 5 - Sjones23/Proposal 2 - Metalvayne 1 - Writ_Keeper 1 - McDoobAU93 1 - ThomasO1989

User talk 322 - Sergecross73 73 - Salvidrim 28 - Nickelbackrules1518 26 - Metalvayne 19 - 98.71.49.191 15 - Sjones23/Proposal 15 - Drecool1 13 - Zagurzem 13 - McDoobAU93 13 - The_Stick_Man/Archive_2

Wikipedia 64 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 22 - Articles_for_deletion/Fallout:_Equestria 17 - Articles_for_deletion/Minetest 16 - Articles_for_deletion/Project_Cafe 12 - Articles_for_deletion/History_of_video_game_consol... 11 - Articles_for_deletion/Nazo_unleashed_trilogy 11 - Articles_for_deletion/Sleepy_Hollow_(band) 11 - Administrators'_noticeboard 11 - Articles_for_deletion/Star_Wars:_Battlefront_III_(... 10 - Articles_for_deletion/Skin_(Rihanna_song)

Wikipedia talk 150 - WikiProject_Video_games 31 - WikiProject_Video_games/Sources 29 - WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines 10 - WikiProject_Video_games/RfC_on_video_game_console_... 3 - Verifiability 3 - Requested_articles 3 - WikiProject_Music 2 - WikiProject_Musicians 1 - Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles 1 - Articles_for_deletion/Forward_(Obama-Biden_Campaig...

Template 38 - Sonic_games 15 - Tales_series 8 - Porcupine_Tree 7 - Sonic_characters 6 - Filter 6 - Karnivool 5 - Blue_Dragon_series 5 - Earthworm_Jim 4 - The_Smashing_Pumpkins 3 - Lo-Pro

Template talk 40 - Sonic_games 2 - Blue_Dragon_series 2 - Mario_franchise 1 - Infobox_video_game

Discussion regarding Intoronto1125's oppose
Why? Buggie111 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This user has done this several times now. It's basically trolling. Automatic  Strikeout  22:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per rationale of first oppose vote. Hence why I left my area blank. Anyways I really don't need a particular reason so please don't hound me for one and use your time here in a better manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoronto1125  (talk • contribs)  23:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but maybe you shouldn't be so defensive. If you're going to cast oppose !votes without rationales, you should expect to be challenged. Frankly, you wasted our time by assuming that we knew you were going by the first !vote. Automatic  Strikeout  23:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. He's not obligated to provide the explanation you so crave. Calling another editor's legitimate votes "trolling" is the only objectionable activity going on here. Townlake (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps trolling was a little excessive, my apologies. I'll put it this way: If you don't explain why you are !voting oppose at RfA/RfB, you should expect to get called on the carpet for it. It was not ridiculous, especially as oppose !votes are more damaging to an RfA than support !votes. Why is that? Simple: RfA are deemed successful or unsuccessful based on consensus, not majority. That puts a greater burden on the supports, making the opposes more meaningful. Automatic  Strikeout  21:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should exercise the Manual Strikeout feature on your "trolling" comment above. -- Scray (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Automatic  Strikeout  01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Users are no more obliged to give a rationale for an oppose than they are for a support. (Remember Fastily? "Support--Why not?" every single time.) But if the RFA is a close one, it's a lot easier for the closing bureaucrat to assess consensus if there's a rationale or explanation given for both supports and opposes. -- Dianna (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was just curious as to why your last five or so RfA's were all opposes with nearly no rationals. My apologies. Buggie111 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel it is up to the closing 'crat to decide about a !vote unsupported by any reasoning whatsoever. It's my understanding that such a !vote will usually carry very little weight. I'd add that an accusation of trolling isn't helpful. Jus  da  fax   07:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fastily's RfA criteria were clearly laid out in his userspace, along with an explanation that satisfying the criteria will mean a "why not?" support. And while user's aren't obliged to give an explanation for an oppose, it's kind of a dick move to oppose a user's promotion without so much as a "per _____". Intoronto has always seemed like a perfectly reasonable user to me, which leaves me puzzled by their !votes (it's not a "legitimate vote" and it won't even be considered) as well as the vicious backlash to any sort of questioning.  Swarm   X 18:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a dick, even by linking to dick, could be considered a bit unpleasant. If someone is concerned that a user is not aware their !vote may be discounted if they don't leave a rationale, linking them to WP:!VOTE would be a helpful approach.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as Swarm having called Intoronto a dick. Instead, he characterized the decision not to provide a rationale for his !vote as a poor one; that's what the expression denotes -- and that's a big difference from name calling.  Frankly, my first impression of Intoronto's failure to provide a rationale for his !vote was "what's his agenda, and why is he hiding it?"  This is meant to be a transparent process, and it's lacking in this instance.  I'm far more concerned with that, and with the sarcasm evidenced in Townlake's comment than anything Swarm did.  --Drmargi (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He said "dick move" and he linked to dick. There is an alternative - Don't be inconsiderate, and there's just the option of being more thoughtful with one's language. There's a subtle but important difference between saying - "That action was inappropriate" to "You're a dick".  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But no one said "you're a dick"! No one! Come on! "Dick move", while admittedly crass, ≠ "you're a dick". "Dick move" ≠ "you're a dick", either. A link to a widely-known essay doesn't change the meaning at all, it just provides some justification for using the word "dick". I've clearly stated multiple times that "you're a dick" is not what I meant, period. Furthermore, there's a huge difference between "that action was inappropriate" and "you're a dick". The former is perfectly reasonable, the latter is an unacceptable personal attack. My comment was along the lines of the former. I like Intoronto. I don't remotely think they're a dick, and even if I did, I wouldn't call them one anyway. Misunderstanding my comment is one thing. But when I repeatedly clarify what I meant and you're insisting on pushing this twisted interpretation of my comment, it really leaves me wondering why you're ignoring my statements. Do you think I'm lying? If so, why? What have I ever done in my editing history to have an assumption of good faith on my part thrown out the window?  Swarm   X 07:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a bit silly for you to cavalierly and pointlessly throw the perjorative "dick" at another editor, then try to hide behind AGF. Townlake (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And, had your objection been my use of that word, that would be a different story.  Swarm   X 20:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is one of those instances where we are best served by trusting the good judgement of our Bureaucrats, who will simply discount any vote without a rationale. Dianna is correct that a rationale is not needed.  For that matter, someone can oppose or support simply because the candidate likes bacon, which will also be discounted when tabulating the totals.  We are usually best served by ignoring votes that make no sense, as asking the "why" seems to never produce satisfactory responses and often just causes a larger, drama filled discussion.  Some people will always have an improper rationale, and as long as their votes are cast aside in the final tally (they are) then it really doesn't matter.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but asking about why there was an oppose was still very appropriate. WP:CONSENSUS means that opposing viewpoints, if reasonable, should be incorporated into the consensus. If Intoronto1125 had discovered something that could be disqualifying for Sergecross73, it's in the community's interest to know that. The RfA is a vetting process in addition to a !vote. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)