en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Username:	Lear's Fool
User groups:	reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Jul 10, 2009 04:31:29
Unique pages edited:	4,456
Average edits per page:	1.65
Live edits:	6,802
Deleted edits:	545
Total edits (including deleted):	7,347
Namespace Totals
Article	2478	36.43%
Talk	363	5.34%
User	343	5.04%
User talk	2635	38.74%
Wikipedia	903	13.28%
Wikipedia talk	28	0.41%
File	3	0.04%
Template	15	0.22%
Template talk	22	0.32%
Help	5	0.07%
Category	6	0.09%
Portal talk	1	0.01%
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2009/07	2 	
2009/08	1 	
2009/09	38 	
2009/10	18 	
2009/11	33 	
2009/12	291 	
2010/01	1098 	
2010/02	1119 	
2010/03	938 	
2010/04	896 	
2010/05	739 	
2010/06	177 	
2010/07	482 	
2010/08	221 	
2010/09	21 	
2010/10	62 	
2010/11	165 	
2010/12	501 	
Top edited pages
Article
    * 24 - John_O'Reily
    * 16 - Patricia_Petersen
    * 13 - Robert_Spence_(bishop)
    * 12 - Andrew_Killian
    * 10 - On_Dit
    * 10 - Philip_Wilson_(archbishop)
    * 9 - Wisconsin_Education_Association_Council
    * 8 - South_Australian_referendum,_1896
    * 8 - Union_Hall_(Adelaide)
    * 7 - Badger_Boys_State
Talk
    * 33 - Australian_federal_election,_2010
    * 12 - Kevin_Rudd
    * 12 - Mike_Rann
    * 12 - Isobel_Redmond
    * 9 - Julia_Gillard
    * 9 - Michael_Atkinson/draft
    * 7 - Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)
    * 4 - John_O'Reily
    * 4 - Japanese_Cartoon_(band)
    * 4 - Michael_Atkinson
User
    * 100 - Lear's_Fool
    * 38 - Lear's_Fool/Sandbox1
    * 37 - Lear's_Fool/monobook.js
    * 19 - Lear's_Fool/Side_Banner
    * 19 - Lear's_Fool/To_Do
    * 15 - Lear's_Fool/huggle.css
    * 9 - Lear's_Fool/Matthew_Beovich
    * 7 - CorenSearchBot/manual
    * 7 - Lear's_Fool/Headers
    * 5 - Lear's_Fool/Userboxes
User talk
    * 112 - Lear's_Fool
    * 46 - Lear's_Fool/Sandbox2
    * 17 - Timeshift9
    * 16 - Lear's_Fool/Headers
    * 10 - Pdfpdf
    * 8 - RogerZoel
    * 8 - Mysdaao
    * 7 - 24.128.111.134
    * 6 - MaxWeberJr
    * 6 - Jkelner2009
Wikipedia
    * 162 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 17 - Requests_for_adminship/Lear's_Fool
    * 17 - Help_desk
    * 13 - Articles_for_deletion/Rafael_Nadal_in_2010
    * 13 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bands_and_musicians
    * 11 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India
    * 10 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Australia
    * 10 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People
    * 10 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Music
    * 10 - Articles_for_deletion/Steven_Slater
Wikipedia talk
    * 10 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
    * 6 - WikiProject_Australian_politics
    * 2 - Copyright_problems
    * 2 - Child_protection
    * 2 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Chronic_Sinusitis_Treatments
    * 1 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
    * 1 - Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment
    * 1 - User_pages
    * 1 - Twinkle
File
    * 1 - TransporterBridgeMbro.jpg
    * 1 - Hero_Fiennes-Tiffin_in_Harry_Potter_preview.jpg
    * 1 - Adelaide_University_Union_Hall_2010-04c.jpg
Template
    * 5 - Bishops_and_Archbishops_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Arch...
    * 2 - Infobox_cardinal
    * 2 - Infobox_cardinal/doc
    * 1 - Players_Championship_Finals
    * 1 - Post-it_medium/post_it
    * 1 - Talkpage_header
    * 1 - Main_Page_toolbox/doc
    * 1 - Centralized_discussion
    * 1 - Celtic_F.C._managers
Template talk
    * 22 - Did_you_know
Help
    * 3 - Pending_changes
    * 1 - Edit_toolbar
    * 1 - Wiki_markup
Category
    * 1 - Artificial_ecosystems
    * 1 - United_States_Senators_from_South_Carolina
    * 1 - Madagascar_at_the_Olympics
    * 1 - People_from_Stoke-on-Trent
    * 1 - Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Manipal_University
    * 1 - Jurassic_reptiles
Portal talk
    * 1 - Biography

Wow what a tough question! It's essentially asking how you would balance your dedication to Wikipedia versus a BLP subject's personal wishes but the hypothetical situation it's framed in is plausible and really well thought out. Good one fetchcomms. -- œ ^™ 13:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the RFA discussion by 3 days. To me, the consensus is simply not clear on this one. The addition of 3 supports and 1 oppose after the scheduled ending signaled to me that there's still discussion left to have. That being said, my decision was not motivated by indecisiveness, but because I believe that the fundamental questions a crat asks when he/she closes an RFA are not being satisfactorily answered by any section. I can't say whether I speak for my colleagues, but I believe that this is a case where more time is helpful. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure asking people to bicker over this for 3 more days (to see which side gets tired of arguing first?) will be the least bit productive. It's been seven days; the strongest arguments on each side have been stated. The candidate deserves a decision. Townlake (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose may have been added after the deadline -- I didn't check first. If it will help speed things along I'm willing to withdraw it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

!votes at RFA are traditionally accepted even past the deadline. The closing time is an "on or after" type of deal.--Chaser (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. My thought was that a delay like this can't be pleasant for the candidate so I don't want to stand in the way of closure. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(crossposting from BN) Personally, I'm not sure that this was the best idea. Both sides have had 7 days to extend their opinions. Extending it further only makes this RfA more of a war of attrition - which side will give up first? There's nothing that extending will achieve except for making hell week a hell weekplus3days. This idea has already been shown by other areas of WP. Unless new info comes up, which has not happened here, extending a closing time does not change consensus. (X! · talk) · @139 · 02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't have it watchlisted, please note that this discussion has continued at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. -- Lear's Fool 03:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I began to write my vote maybe a minute or two before X! put it on hold. I saved my vote and found out he had closed it about 2 minutes before. So much for reading my vote to make it simple and shorter. It was a support. Not sure they will let it through. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]