Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Smashville

Edit count for Smashville
User:Smashville

run at Wed Aug 27 17:50:25 2008 GMT

Category:             1 Image:                2 Mainspace             1502 Talk:                 151 Template:             12 User talk:            1039 User:                 103 Wikipedia talk:       47 Wikipedia:            1088 avg edits per page    2.02 earliest              23:30, 16 July 2007 number of unique pages 1952 total                 3945

2007/7 12   2007/8  624   2007/9  428   2007/10 377   2007/11 327   2007/12 424   2008/1  505   2008/2  234   2008/3  106   2008/4  170   2008/5  418   2008/6  124   2008/7  100   2008/8  96

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 48 [2]Curlin 44 [3]2007-08 Nashville Predators season 41 [4]Big Brown 39 [5]Nashville, Tennessee 34 [6]Nashville Predators 30 [7]Tennessee 22 [8]Jack Russell Terrier 19 [9]2008 Preakness Stakes 18 [10]8 Man 18 [11]Barbaro 17 [12]Franklin, Tennessee 15 [13]Montgomery Bell Academy 15 [14]A P Valentine 14 [15]Eight Belles 13 [16]Belmont University

Talk: 18 [17]Eight Belles 14 [18]Sidney Crosby 8 [19]Big Brown 5 [20]February 1 5 [21]Lundby (company) 5 [22]Kentucky Derby 5 [23]Tennessee 4 [24]Curlin 4 [25]John Henry (horse) 4 [26]San Diego, California 3 [27]Barbaro 3 [28]Schoharie Valley 3 [29]Nashville, Tennessee 3 [30]Bleach (manga) 2 [31]Houston Nutt

Template: 6 [32]Kentucky Derby Winners 2 [33]Nashville Predators roster

User: 47 [34]Smashville/Sandbox 41 [35]Smashville 3 [36]Smashville/RfA

User talk: 132 [37]Smashville 10 [38]Abhih 7  [39]Bill yates27 7  [40]Markmanmarkman 6  [41]Grandia01 6  [42]Jonwinquist 6  [43]Girls alouds biggest fan 6  [44]70.81.185.190   5   [45]Dksindhi 5  [46]Natalie Erin 5  [47]Smashville/Archive1 5  [48]The Arachnid 5  [49]Hothwa 5  [50]Prodders 5  [51]Sakugawa

Wikipedia: 103 [52]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 28 [53]Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18 22 [54]Administrator intervention against vandalism 22 [55]Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) 21 [56]Usernames for administrator attention 15 [57]Requests for page protection 14 [58]Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24 13 [59]Administrators' noticeboard/3RR 13 [60]Articles for deletion/BMI Chart (height 150 to 174 cm) 11 [61]Articles for deletion/Andrew Hatch 10 [62]Deletion review/Log/2008 April 10 10 [63]Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7 9  [64]Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender 9  [65]Articles for deletion/Perimeter Mall 8  [66]Deletion review/Log/2007 October 31

Wikipedia talk: 14 [67]Neutral point of view 10 [68]WikiProject Thoroughbred racing 9 [69]WikiProject Tennessee 7 [70]WikiProject Ice Hockey 4 [71]Notability (people)

If there were any problems, please [72]email Interiot or post at  [73]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC).

Opposing per willingness for recall
If this is going to be a recurring theme, perhaps it should be discussed, if for no other reason than to discourage it. I have to be honest &mdash; of all things, opposing because a candidate is willing to consider recall disturbs me more than any oppose rationale I've seen in a long while. I find it hard to believe that it took one admin refusing to step down before it was realized that voluntary recall is indeed voluntary, and a chance always exists that an admin will refuse to go through with it. You can put as much faith in a promise to be open for recall as you wish, but opposing on the basis of a promise being made? Is this no different than opposing because a candidate has made any kind of promise that requires our faith? Is the entire RFA process not in itself a promise to uphold the community's standards to one's best ability? Okiefromokla questions? 01:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's long been a recurring practice for some editors to use RfAs to make a wiki-political point about whatever drama du jour is currently contentious in the community. External sites, use of IRC, BLPSE etc. etc. have all had received an airing; more usually it follows the form of a question no answer to which will not result in a few oppose votes. It's a quick and dirty way to make a point without having to engage in the tedium of presenting an actual intelligent argument; we just have to hope the bureaucrats give such nonsense the weight it deserves but I've seen it sink more than one RfA. CIreland (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)