Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Writ Keeper

Edit stats as of 23:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Username:	Writ Keeper User groups:	rollbacker First edit:	Sep 29, 2011 15:20:25 Unique pages edited:	3,393 Average edits per page:	2.90 Live edits:	7,901 Deleted edits:	1,951 Total edits (including deleted):	9,852

Namespace Totals

Article	1146	14.50% Talk	305	3.86% User	1866	23.62% User talk	3397	42.99% Wikipedia	874	11.06% Wikipedia talk	286	3.62% MediaWiki talk	4	0.05% Template	11	0.14% Template talk	11	0.14% Portal	1	0.01%

Month counts

2011/09	8	2011/10	826	2011/11	499	2011/12	143	2012/01	189	2012/02	341	2012/03	886	2012/04	1182	2012/05	1006	2012/06	478	2012/07	681	2012/08	623	2012/09	622	2012/10	417

Top edited pages

Article 13 - Adab_al-Tabib 9 - Pope_John_Paul_II_Elementary_School 8 - Treaty_of_Haddington 8 - Sülde_Tngri 7 - Knight's_Spider_Web_Farm 6 - Chesapeake_Energy 6 - Joe_Lynam 6 - A_Rose_for_Emily 5 - Johnny_Depp_filmography 5 - East_Davidson_High_School

Talk 18 - Reach_for_the_Sky 18 - Blackbeard 12 - Chesapeake_Energy 11 - Biblical_cosmology 10 - Telangana_movement 9 - Go_(game) 9 - Princess_Estelle,_Duchess_of_Östergötland 9 - Hedge_fund 8 - Thomas_Willis 8 - Fine_print

User 1289 - Writ_Keeper/CSD_log 84 - Writ_Keeper/PROD_log 45 - Writ_Keeper/common.js 36 - Writ_Keeper/sandbox 36 - Writ_Keeper/Scripts/teahouseTalkbackLink.js 33 - Writ_Keeper 29 - Writ_Keeper/Scripts/teahouseUtility.js 26 - Writ_Keeper/Stuff 22 - Writ_Keeper/Scripts 21 - Writ_Keeper/Scripts/SearchNamespace.js

User talk 256 - Writ_Keeper 93 - Drmies 28 - Jtmorgan 24 - Worm_That_Turned 24 - Dennis_Brown 19 - SarahStierch 16 - LadyofShalott 15 - Czarkoff 13 - JohnCD 11 - WK-test

Wikipedia 325 - Teahouse/Questions 105 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention 96 - Third_opinion 47 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 14 - Village_pump_(technical) 14 - Dispute_resolution_noticeboard 13 - Sandbox 10 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 8 - Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_C._Stone 7 - Today's_article_for_improvement/Nominated_articles

Wikipedia talk 95 - Teahouse/Host_lounge 92 - Teahouse 25 - Third_opinion 15 - Page_Curation 15 - Teahouse/Host_lounge/User_scripts 7 - WikiProject_user_warnings/Testing 4 - Articles_for_creation/The_Shrinking_Lonesome_Sesti... 4 - Teahouse/Guests 4 - Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Parallel_history 3 - Twinkle

MediaWiki talk 2 - Gadget-teahouse/content.js 2 - Titleblacklist

Template 5 - Did_you_know_nominations/Adab_al-Tabib 1 - Camouflage 1 - Holden_Special_Vehicles 1 - Huggle/warn-speedy-2 1 - Unicode_chart_Chess_Symbols 1 - Did_you_know_nominations/Herringbone_(horse) 1 - Latest_preview_software_release/Steam

Template talk 9 - Holden_Special_Vehicles 1 - Did_you_know 1 - Test

Portal 1 - Fish/Intro

Note on support
I find it a little odd that we already have 8 support votes on a candidate that has answered only 3 questions. Some might call this a rubber stamp. Why do we have this process if we are so willing to just support a candidate with so little to base it on besides what experiance we have of the editor off the RFA itself?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions aren't everything -- for example, I've already seen (repeatedly) the candidate demonstrate good judgement in varied scenarios... so I felt that a question was unnecessary. Can't speak for everyone else, of course.  Theo polisme  00:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is my point. If others are willing to support a candidate without worrying about an potential problems that may appear during the RFA....why have an RFA at all. This looks like one of the problems of the way this works. Is it possible that other editors see this and take it upon themselves to drag out every bit of minutiae in order to counter the auto-support of others? Also, why would this candidate (or any cnadidate with this kind of support) bother with answering any questions when the bulk of their support comes from those that have already made up their minds?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, the questions that were answered were done while this RFA was stil in a test phase in the user's sandbox, so the candidate has yet to address the actual RFA at all and has recieved ten eleven supports. This is truly a rubber stamp so far.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The pre-answered questions were the three regular questions every candidate gets; most of us (i.e. me) answered those before transclusion of our RfAs. And one of those supports was from me, which would be somewhat expected of a conom (now I'm wondering where Drmies is... sure he'll turn up in short order).  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 04:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you TBOTNL. I appreciate the information! I am not sure if Drmies will respond to this...but if he does, I am sure he'll have a few things to say about it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I transcluded it without much warning; I'm sure he'll turn up sooner or later. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Amadscientist, you clearly don't understand RfA well enough to take part. I suggest you come back when you understand the process . Ryan Vesey 05:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was a little surprised by this comment, it seemed a little too strong. However, I don't understand the complaint about the early supports. If one knows enough about a user to support him, why should he wait for the candidate to answer 300 questions? Besides, you (Amadscientist) are almost making it sound like an RfA is a piece of cake. It's not. Automatic  Strikeout  14:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a complaint, but I disagree with one thing...this RFA is a cakewalk.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now it might be, but remember what happened at Sigma's RfA. These things aren't over till they're over. Automatic  Strikeout  02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ain't that the truth... Go  Phightins  !  02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryan Vesey, I am sure there is much I don't understand, but I do doubt that I can be excluded from the process over it. Forgive my ignorance. I assumed the talkpage was for off topic discussions involving the actual RFA. If you wish to remove me from the RFA, I will understand if you begin whatever formal process there is for such removal, but I do not believe I have demonstrated a lack of competence. Is it possible you are overreacting?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is rare that I see a comment by Ryan Vesey that I don't predominately support. The above is way out of character; and lamentable. I can hardly imagine a fresh set of good faith eyes not being welcome to this environment. And I find your question to be intriguingly keen considering it reflects on your initial impressions. There is nothing in it that spells naive and has in fact been proffered by several others, some of considerable experience. I'm sorry for not actually addressing the question, but my tl;dr allotment has been reached. 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the comment above. I was up way too late when I made it.  In response to your question, there are a large number of things that can lead to a support or an oppose !vote without any questions being asked.  First, someone might know a candidate and already know they have enough experience to be an administrator.  Second, someone might have done an in-depth search through the candidates contribs.  Third, the quality of nomination statements and the response to the three initial questions can oftentimes make a case.  Questions are important to those editors who don't know the candidate well enough beforehand or who are on the fence. Ryan Vesey 15:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its no problem Ryan. While I was taken back a bit by the response I also know I am not going with the flow.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are times when one has encountered an editor on the project enough (such as I with Writ Keeper) to trust him with the tools without needing answers to five part questions from jc37 to "determine if he meets the criteria". Some of the questions are ludicrous and don't really answer the question, "Is this user likely to abuse the additional tools that come with adminship?" which should be the primary question one asks in an RFA. I could answer that question for Writ Keeper without needing to see three part questions with four follow-ups. We wonder why we have so few administrators... Go  Phightins  !  15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the system. If we are going to keep it, then try to respect it. That is how I see it. I am not attacking the nom or being incivl or making personal attacks, but a three part question with follow ups is a bad thng? LOL.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Coupled with the dozens of other questions that have been asked, it's excessive. Go   Phightins  !  23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not really. They are civil and respectful. Would you rather I just cussed a lot and name called?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and frankly that's a pretty crass interpretation of what I said. I think that if you need to ask a question or two, that's fine, but requiring a candidate to answer 16 and counting multi-part questions with follow ups is a bit excessive, in my opinion. Go   Phightins  !  02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, I think this is getting pretty out of hand. It was kinda too many questions, but it's really not a big deal. I'm not offended or anything.  I think we should just leave it at this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Writ. Best to just respect each others opinions and agree to disagree.  We all disagree from time to time, nothing wrong with that.  It's how we handle it that matters.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;   Join WER 02:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked three intitial questions and Writ dodged two of them. I had to go back and re-ask in less general terms and still could not get the nom to answer the first one. After asking a second time about 30 he did answer that and did so very well in my opinion. He could have answered the first question, he dicided not to. I also dropped any further clarification and decided to just not support the nomination based on the way the first answer was recieved.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I rarely read through the entire question and answer section before I vote. Out of 20+ questions, I'll generally browse through and just read the questions, and if there's one that interests me I'll read through the answer.  I probably read through 2-3 answers total; most of the questions either don't interest me or don't give me any useful information about the candidate.  If a candidate can give short, concise answers, then I'll usually read more of those.  I can't stand long, multi-paragraph questions and answers.  ‑Scottywong | yak _  14:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to do about the same. I siggest candidates only complain about the amount of questions at their own peril. If they don't like the question, don't answer it. Leave it blank and shut up. It will make them look one way to their supporters and another way to the opposers. Leave it that way.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all!
I'm not a big fan of spamming 150 people or however many it is with thanks messages, so let me just say it here (why not?). Thanks to everyone! I appreciated y'all's kind words, and I'll definitely take your concerns to heart. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)