Username | Thatcher131 |
Total edits | 7825 |
Distinct pages edited | 2546 |
Average edits/page | 3.073 |
First edit | 17:50, 8 February 2006 |
(main) | 1786 |
Talk | 517 |
User | 206 |
User talk | 889 |
Image | 23 |
Image talk | 1 |
Template | 89 |
Template talk | 19 |
Category | 16 |
Category talk | 1 |
Wikipedia | 3922 |
Wikipedia talk | 356 |
Last 5000 edits.
Voice-of-All
20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Viewing contribution data for user Thatcher131 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 134 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 14, Sep , 2006 || Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 2, May, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 96.82% Minor edits: 97.83% Average edits per day: 42.7 (for last 1000 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 269 edits): Major article edits: 98% Minor article edits: 99.41% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 20 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (6) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.62% (31) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 11.36% (568) Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 16 (checks last 5000) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 54.56% Special edit type statistics (as marked): Deletion pages: 2.3% (115 edit(s)) Article deletion tagging: 0.14% (7 edit(s)) "Copyright problems" pages: 0.06% (3 edit(s)) WP:AN/related noticeboards: 49.68% (2484 edit(s)) Bot approvals pages: 0.02% (1 edit(s)) FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0.04% (2 edit(s)) RfC/RfAr pages: 3.54% (177 edit(s)) Requests for adminship: 1.02% (51 edit(s)) Identified RfA votes: 0.18% (7 support vote(s)) || (2 oppose vote(s)) Page moves: 1% (50 edit(s)) (28 moves(s)) Page redirections: 0.6% (30 edit(s)) Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s)) User warnings: 0.4% (20 edit(s)) User welcomes: 0.36% (18 edit(s)) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1424 | Average edits per page: 3.51 | Edits on top: 13.22% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 70.18% (3509 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 19.52% (976 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4% (200 edit(s)) Unmarked edits with no summary: 3.8% (190 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 13.88% (694) | Article talk: 2.22% (111) User: 3.6% (180) | User talk: 12.68% (634) Wikipedia: 59.4% (2970) | Wikipedia talk: 5.86% (293) Image: 0.26% (13) | Image talk: 0% (0) Template: 1.74% (87) | Template talk: 0.24% (12) Category: 0.12% (6) | Category talk: 0% (0) Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0)
It took me a while to find the context of the disputed edit in the archive. I thought I would post it here for others to see. The archived material can be found at 59% = consensus? , I have bolded the three comments made by Thatcher131 in this discussion for easy scanning. David D. (Talk) 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
59% = consensus? (use link to see archived section)
Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. -- SPUI ( T - C) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other. Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into King Solomon for ideas? Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> Kim Bruning 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try consensus polling. -- bainer ( talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right?
That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." Haukur 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI Blocked (use link to see archived section) I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. -- Golbez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
|
Username | Thatcher131 |
Total edits | 7825 |
Distinct pages edited | 2546 |
Average edits/page | 3.073 |
First edit | 17:50, 8 February 2006 |
(main) | 1786 |
Talk | 517 |
User | 206 |
User talk | 889 |
Image | 23 |
Image talk | 1 |
Template | 89 |
Template talk | 19 |
Category | 16 |
Category talk | 1 |
Wikipedia | 3922 |
Wikipedia talk | 356 |
Last 5000 edits.
Voice-of-All
20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Viewing contribution data for user Thatcher131 (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 134 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 14, Sep , 2006 || Oldest edit on: 12hr (UTC) -- 2, May, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 96.82% Minor edits: 97.83% Average edits per day: 42.7 (for last 1000 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 269 edits): Major article edits: 98% Minor article edits: 99.41% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 20 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (6) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.62% (31) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 11.36% (568) Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 16 (checks last 5000) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 54.56% Special edit type statistics (as marked): Deletion pages: 2.3% (115 edit(s)) Article deletion tagging: 0.14% (7 edit(s)) "Copyright problems" pages: 0.06% (3 edit(s)) WP:AN/related noticeboards: 49.68% (2484 edit(s)) Bot approvals pages: 0.02% (1 edit(s)) FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0.04% (2 edit(s)) RfC/RfAr pages: 3.54% (177 edit(s)) Requests for adminship: 1.02% (51 edit(s)) Identified RfA votes: 0.18% (7 support vote(s)) || (2 oppose vote(s)) Page moves: 1% (50 edit(s)) (28 moves(s)) Page redirections: 0.6% (30 edit(s)) Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s)) User warnings: 0.4% (20 edit(s)) User welcomes: 0.36% (18 edit(s)) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1424 | Average edits per page: 3.51 | Edits on top: 13.22% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 70.18% (3509 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 19.52% (976 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4% (200 edit(s)) Unmarked edits with no summary: 3.8% (190 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 13.88% (694) | Article talk: 2.22% (111) User: 3.6% (180) | User talk: 12.68% (634) Wikipedia: 59.4% (2970) | Wikipedia talk: 5.86% (293) Image: 0.26% (13) | Image talk: 0% (0) Template: 1.74% (87) | Template talk: 0.24% (12) Category: 0.12% (6) | Category talk: 0% (0) Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0)
It took me a while to find the context of the disputed edit in the archive. I thought I would post it here for others to see. The archived material can be found at 59% = consensus? , I have bolded the three comments made by Thatcher131 in this discussion for easy scanning. David D. (Talk) 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
59% = consensus? (use link to see archived section)
Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. -- SPUI ( T - C) 05:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
All I can say is that that page and proper wikipedia policymaking don't really have much correlation with each other. Now as to achieving consensus, I wonder if the arbcom ever looked into King Solomon for ideas? Well, whatever the case... as a start, I propose deletion of all highwaycruft. That'll end the situation swiftly. <looks innocent> Kim Bruning 12:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, as Angela suggested on Wikien-l, we ought to try consensus polling. -- bainer ( talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this may be an extreme viewpoint to take. I don't care -- this whole thing is frustrating. -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Relax, SPUI, it's just some non-binding poll. Right?
That's official policy for you, and a pretty good description of reality around here too. This has annoyed me often enough in the past, it's just about impossible to just make a decision and move on. Someone will always show up and say: "Hey! I wasn't a part of that 'consensus', it's utterly wrong - let's do things another way." Haukur 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the poll is 59/41 shows there is considerable support for SPUI's position and we shouldn't belittle him for that. However it is important to consider the Arbcom ruling (which seems to me common sense) that sometimes a decision has to be made and in those cases an arbitrary decision is better than no decision. Of course no decision is final but that does not mean continually fighting over it. To me it means accepting a decision, living with it for a few months, and then revisiting the issue. At this point the only viable options are to close as no decision, meaning the highways articles will remain at status quo ante and perpetuating the argument indefinitely, or closing as decided, resulting in a plausible solution that may nevertheless disappoint or even infuriate one editor. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know SPUI and I don't know the long and horrid background, but is there a reason SPUI has not yet exhausted the community's patience? He's got a block log as long as your arm, and he seems to acting in an intentionally disruptive manner today. Friday (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
SPUI Blocked (use link to see archived section) I'm exhausted. I warned him and he argued about what the meaning of the warning is about. Blocked for 31 hours. I invite review of my actions. I assume this needs to go on the ArbCom case page too... I'm not ready for a permanent block at this time, I still hope this valuable contributor can be convinced to not be so abrasively tendentious. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ashibaka ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reduced the block to 5 hours saying "Block shortened to 5 hours out of consideration that you are engaged in a number of important discussions, but when you look at the sort of forest fire you tried to start I think it is pretty necessary. Ashibaka tock 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)". That's fine by me, but if when I get home late tonite, it hasn't worked and SPUI is back at it, I'm reblocking. For longer. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No user is indispensible - Wik showed us that. SPUI is very similar to Wik, in both his disruptive abilities and the high quality of his many edits. It would be sad to see SPUI go - then again, it was sad to see Wik go, too. I hope things can be worked out. -- Golbez 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
|