From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Edit count for RMHED
User:RMHED
run at Tue Jan 29 23:00:42 2008 GMT
Image: 52
Mainspace 3899
Talk: 3059
Template talk: 6
Template: 19
User talk: 603
User: 18
Wikipedia talk: 3
Wikipedia: 992
avg edits per page 1.28
earliest 22:56, 8 February 2006
number of unique pages 6744
total 8651
2006/2 127
2006/3 5
2006/4 0
2006/5 1
2006/6 372
2006/7 752
2006/8 530
2006/9 274
2006/10 35
2006/11 62
2006/12 45
2007/1 8
2007/2 0
2007/3 0
2007/4 0
2007/5 4
2007/6 3
2007/7 12
2007/8 36
2007/9 7
2007/10 4
2007/11 1325
2007/12 2270
2008/1 2779
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
271 Deaths in 2006
105 List of historic houses in England
40 Deaths in 2007
30 List of films based on British sitcoms
23 Dead pool
20 Deaths in July 2007
19 Archibald Low
17 List of comedy television series
17 Joan Hamburg
16 List of The Shadow stories
16 Alberto Cavalcanti
14 Bastards (disambiguation)
14 Minder (TV series)
13 Francis Cammaerts
13 List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 33
Talk:
7 Murder of Emily Sander
4 List of films based on British sitcoms
4 Dead pool
4 Deaths in 2007
3 Flavor
3 Ross Overbeek
2 Harry Bentley (The Jeffersons)
2 Soncino, Italy
2 Vigevano
2 300-page iPhone bill
2 Nembro
2 Peschiera del Garda
2 Tatsuz? Shimaoka
2 Michael Mayne
2 Martin Adler
Image:
3 Bill-Daniel-meeting-JFK.jpg
2 ExperimentalWorks.jpg
2 Johnny-Jenkins.jpg
2 Charles-Barrow.jpg
2 Funsho-Williams.jpg
2 Carry-On-Regardless.jpg
2 Archibal-Low.jpg
2 Carry-On-Constable.jpg
2 Basket-of-light.jpg
2 Minehead.jpg
2 Inlovingmemory.jpg
2 Lherbier.jpg
2 Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg
2 Misty melancholy.jpg
2 Carry-on-camping.jpg
Template:
6 Province of Brescia
4 Will Hay
Template talk:
6 Did you know
User:
5 NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological)
3 Nlsanand
2 Gougs001
User talk:
171 RMHED
14 RMHED/Archive 1
6 Thatperson
5 RMHED/Archive2
5 Noface1
4 Sewfan
4 Jmfreak10
3 Bishoprashad
3 DGG
3 Redvers
3 71.246.103.253
3 82.35.25.65
3 Joker-913
3 Boyboy888
3 69.153.68.29
Wikipedia:
29 Most wanted articles
9 Administrator intervention against vandalism
8 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
6 Articles for deletion/Aiden Ford
6 Articles for deletion/Esteemsters
6 Articles for deletion/Guyball
6 Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles
5 Requests for comment/Kmweber 2
5 Copyright problems/2006 September 8/Articles
5 Articles for deletion/Raccoon Police Department
5 Articles for deletion/University of Sheffield Union of Students
4 Articles for deletion/Caridee English
4 Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something
4 Articles for deletion/Space (NewsRadio episode)
4 Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (7th nom)
Wikipedia talk:
2 WikiProject Heroes
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Response to Bstone's "oppose"
- Since you would not be open to voluntary recall I must vote opposed. My apologies but any potential admin who does not accept recall is not one I can in good conscience entrust with the mop. Bstone (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- His answer to the question about recall doesn't actually say he wouldn't list himself for recall, it just says it should be formalized and applied to all admins. Frankly, I agree with him. But the language he used doesn't rule out the possibility that he'd list himself anyway. --W.marsh 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've clarified my position on recall, hope that helps. RMHED (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've cast my vote. Bstone (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've cast my vote is the most illogical reason to not budge on an issue the candidate has addressed, as firstly this is a discussion, not a dreaded vote (for now..., there are 6 users that have voice supports or opposes), and secondly, your oppose become kinda invalid if the user is somehow open to voluntary recall. Maxim(talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh....Please keep it civil. I've put in my opinion. Have a good day. Bstone (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see nothing in Maxim's comments that could be considered uncivil. In fact, I completely agree with him. If your one issue with the canidate is an issue which no longer exists, you owe it to the canidate to support them or at least withdraw your oppose. If you have other reasons to oppose, that is definitely fair. But if so, the community, the canidate, and closing bureaucrat would all prefer you state them, I'm sure. SorryGuy Talk 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Badgering people to change their votes will never succeed. I think in some places they call it vote tampering. Bstone (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bstone, I would kindly recommend that you read WP:VOTE. Icestorm815 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tell me otherwise, but you opposed due to him not specifically stating that he will put himself in recall, then is adamant about changing your oppose even after your oppose is addressed? That's bloody ridiculous. — DarkFalls talk 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think at this point it might be better off for us to leave it to the 'crats. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree Icestorm, and had planned on doing so. However, I will point out that the redirect which I believe you wanted Bstone to read is WP:VOTE. SorryGuy Talk 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The utter incivility here is astounding. I am considering a report to AN/I. I maintain my oppose as his original intention was not to put himself into admin recall which in my opinion automatically disqualifies oneself from being an admin. He may have changed it but his original intention is what I go with. WP:Vote says nothing about how I must place my faith after a candidate changes their platform. Further, WP:VOTE does not require me to change my opinion either. It does say that opinion should be based on discussion. However as an individual I have certain lines requirements which I maintain all potential admins must follow. Certainly you will agree that I am allowed to have those requirements. Anyone who states that they will not voluntarily submit to admin recall is someone who I will lodge an oppose vote for. Badgering me or attempting to influence me to change my requirements is very disturbing. I ask that you do so only extremely tactfully and not with comments like "bloody ridiculous" as that will get you nowhere. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, for pointing out the link mistake for me, SorryGuy, I thought I had caps-on! :) Icestorm815 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- (unindent)(ec)Again, I do not believe there is incivility here. Further, I believe you may want to consider reviewing our policy on good faith at WP:AGF. As W.marsh points out, the original statement was ambiguous. When we have a further explanation, I think we need to assume good faith that user meant they would add themselves to the recall list. However, now that you have at least explained your oppose, I will not continue this discussion. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- (zomg ec) Bstone, I think the issue was your initial comment seemed to imply that, because the candidate was not in explicit favor of voluntary recall, you opposed. The fact that the candidate appears to support mandatory recall through a formal process seemed to be overlooked, which is why (I think) it was brought to your attention. It's clear from your comment above that it was not overlooked, and that your !vote is indeed based on a full understanding of the candidate's position. SO, they tried to help, and their help was not required - I don't believe any harm or vote-rigging was intended. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was I swearing at you Bstone? Was I calling you "bloody ridiculous"? Saying bloody does not equal incivility. Please do not link policy at me when I did nothing wrong by that policy. I was stating my own opinion. — DarkFalls talk 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This entire discussion is bloody ridiculous, not least of all because of the rather pathetic hard line stance taken by the voter. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It makes me sad to see something like this. People who care enough to "vote" on these things should use logic. Nobody should escalate commitment to a past edit or position merely to prove they can hold their ground.
- And look at the wording of the question upon which this opposition was based: What's your opinion on admin recall? Nowhere in that question does it ask if the person will make him/herself open to recall. I've seen people react this way to answers to that question repeatedly in these RfAs, and I just don't understand it. The nominee answered the question as it is worded. Doczilla (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with Bstone's opinion. In my opinion, his logic is flawed. However he is entitled to maintain his "oppose" vote, despite any evidence that contradicts his reasoning. Axl (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Notice that the admin who moved the discussion here did indeed call it uncivil. Am I not entitled to my vote? My reasons are my own and despite your "logic" perhaps I just don't get the right "vibe" from this applicant. With 2 oppose votes it really shouldn't be that bad, however. Stop badgering me and we can all go back to the important thing- editing this encyclopedia. Continue to badger me and be uncivil and I'll sadly and most regretfully have to inform the admin. Bstone (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Both sides of this "discussion" were and are being incivil at this point, and it's certainly not constructive. PErhaps I should have just deleted this rather than transpose it to the talk page. One oppose is unlikely, in the scheme of things, to make any difference to this RFA. I suggest you all find something better to do. Neıl ☎ 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
