Editing stats for Ronhjones as of 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC):
General user info
Username: Ronhjones
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Mar 29, 2008 22:34:22
Unique articles edited: 24,414
Average edits per page: 1.34
Total edits (including deleted): 32,830
Deleted edits: 1,005
Live edits: 31,825
Namespace totals
Article 16734 52.58%
Talk 477 1.50%
User 1028 3.23%
User talk 12586 39.55%
Wikipedia 686 2.16%
Wikipedia talk 64 0.20%
File 33 0.10%
File talk 3 0.01%
MediaWiki talk 1 0.00%
Template 157 0.49%
Template talk 9 0.03%
Help 4 0.01%
Help talk 2 0.01%
Category 37 0.12%
Category talk 1 0.00%
Portal 3 0.01%
Month counts
2008/03 4
2008/04 2
2008/05 0
2008/06 0
2008/07 0
2008/08 1
2008/09 0
2008/10 0
2008/11 0
2008/12 140
2009/01 432
2009/02 2000
2009/03 3182
2009/04 1546
2009/05 2680
2009/06 1925
2009/07 3811
2009/08 4074
2009/09 5174
2009/10 4066
2009/11 2788
Logs
Pages moved: 25
Pages patrolled: 192
Files uploaded: 5
Top edited articles
Article
* 22 - Alfa_Aesar
* 19 - Disney_Sing_Along_Songs
* 17 - List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_the_Jon...
* 16 - Forensic_psychiatry
* 14 - Josh_McRoberts
* 14 - A_Matter_of_Loaf_and_Death
* 13 - Calorimeter
* 13 - Robert_Cochrane_(witch)
* 13 - Reaction_calorimeter
* 12 - Miss_Sinergy
Talk
* 6 - Fellatio
* 5 - Spermophagia
* 5 - A_Matter_of_Loaf_and_Death
* 5 - Anal–oral_sex
* 5 - Lock_(water_transport)
* 5 - Suspended_deck_bridge
* 5 - Pittsburgh
* 4 - Trent_and_Mersey_Canal
* 4 - Chemical_accident
* 4 - Dust_explosion
User
* 228 - Ronhjones/Sandbox
* 226 - Ronhjones
* 186 - Ronhjones/Status
* 118 - Ronhjones/Sandbox2
* 27 - Ronhjones/Userbox
* 25 - Ronhjones/Articles_saved
* 20 - Ronhjones/huggle.css
* 14 - Ronhjones/monobook.js
* 14 - Ronhjones/Mylinks
* 7 - Ronhjones/Awards
User talk
* 385 - Ronhjones
* 8 - Bob1960evens
* 8 - N5iln
* 7 - Electropaedia
* 6 - Margaret100
* 6 - 99.149.84.135
* 6 - 189.25.181.111
* 6 - Checkingtheline
* 6 - Sotochace
* 5 - Jimguyer
Wikipedia
* 400 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 39 - Huggle/Whitelist
* 31 - Reference_desk/Science
* 19 - Requests_for_page_protection
* 17 - Help_desk
* 10 - Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing
* 8 - Huggle/Feedback
* 8 - Requests_for_adminship/Ronhjones
* 7 - Administrators'_noticeboard
* 7 - New_contributors'_help_page
Wikipedia talk
* 25 - WikiProject_UK_Waterways
* 11 - WikiProject_Chemicals
* 4 - Flagged_revisions/Trial
* 3 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 3 - WikiProject_UK_Waterways/Archive_index
* 2 - WikiProject_UK_Waterways/ArchiveTemplate
* 2 - Twinkle
* 1 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
* 1 - Special:PrefixIndex
* 1 - External_links
File
* 3 - Brave_New_World.jpg
* 2 - Harry_Potter_Soundtrack_-_Hedwig's_Theme.ogg
* 2 - The_Power_Of_Love_Jeniffer_Rush.ogg
* 2 - Miley_Cyrus_-_Party_In_The_USA.ogg
* 1 - AR_Little_Rock_Nine.jpg
* 1 - Jamshedpur.ogg
* 1 - T.I._-_No_Matter_What.jpg
* 1 - IMVU_example.jpeg
* 1 - 6teen_promo.png
* 1 - IPod_Touch_2.0.png
File talk
* 1 - Synthesizing_Copper_Sulfate.jpg
* 1 - Poptropica_Spy.jpg
* 1 - YousufKarsh1991.jpg
MediaWiki talk
* 1 - Noarticletext
Template
* 32 - Waterways_legend
* 24 - Infobox_AqueductNavigable/doc
* 12 - Infobox_AqueductNavigable
* 8 - TOCyears/testcases
* 7 - Four_Counties_Ring_Canal_Map
* 5 - Sex
* 5 - Oxford_Canal_Route_Map
* 4 - Stort_Navigation_Route_Map
* 4 - Infobox_Aqueduct
* 4 - Glastonbury_Festival_2009_2
Template talk
* 2 - Introduction_to_Wikipedia
* 2 - Infobox_radio_station
* 1 - User_UBC
* 1 - Waterways_legend
* 1 - Infobox_AqueductNavigable
* 1 - Soul_series
* 1 - Hiphop
Help
* 2 - Reverting
* 1 - Contents/Editing_Wikipedia
* 1 - Section
Help talk
* 2 - Template
Category
* 5 - Lancaster_Canal
* 4 - Massachusetts_natural_resources
* 3 - Sports_chiropractic
* 2 - Wikipedia_style_guidelines
* 2 - Wearable_art
* 2 - Chemical_companies_based_in_Massachusetts
* 1 - People_from_New_York_City
* 1 - Gay_actors
* 1 - Musical_scales
* 1 - Categories
Category talk
* 1 - Wikipedia_content_guidelines
Portal
* 1 - Japan
* 1 - Technology
* 1 - Arts/Featured_article/April,_2009
There's a discussion going on here. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - - Per your stance on no consensus BLP AFDs defaulting to keep. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point out the policy or guideline where it instructs or recommends that they default to delete? Tan | 39 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Just, wow. Tan | 39 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would assume your amazement, is to the fact that I had enough clue to answer that properly. ;) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My amazement is that you would use RfA to further an agenda. There has been much discussion on this issue and the BLP-defaulting-to-delete issue never gained enough traction to be made official policy or guideline. Yet, you will oppose candidates who do not share your view that we should ignore the rules here and do it your way. Mmmkay. Tan | 39 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Tan. If Coffee's comments are attempts at humor, they aren't funny in an Rfa. Jusdafax 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not "furthering an agenda", I'm using the policy for what it was made. It says "If a rule prevents you from ... maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.", and the way I see it the current Delete policy prevents you from properly maintaining Wikipedia. I also didn't just oppose him because of that, as you might notice I did link to a full page of reasons. @Jusdafax Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking, I'm posting perfectly reasonable replies. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My replies aren't meant to entertain you. However, I recommend you keep a bit of maturity about yourself here - you're an admin, and you're acting like a child. Tan | 39 16:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and your blatant violation of WP:Civil in a high-profile Rfa calls your judgement - and fitness - into question. Jusdafax 17:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jusdafax: There's no breach of civility here, from what I can see, I used an exclamation (and a commonly used expression for lacking clue), not necessarily uncivil. @Tan: You knew what you were getting into when you asked a question you knew the answer to. I see no reason to pretend to take your concern of it not being in policy seriously. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "@Jusdafax Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking" isn't at all civil, Coffee. Really, I completely agree with BLP AFDs defaulting to delete if the result is no consensus, but it's not policy, simple as that. Using IAR to circumvent that is not really appropriate, especially in an RFA. Basically, you're opposing because you disagree with their opinion on it? Majorly talk 17:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that's exactly what I'm doing, and since when did that become wrong? Seemed like Kmweber got away with worse ideals for years. And again I disagree, being blunt isn't being uncivil; I don't always find the need to cherry pick my words in real life, why should I do any different here? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coffee, as much as I may agree with BLPs defaulting to delete, it is quite simply unfair to oppose a candidate who will follow the current consensus/policy and not stick their neck out to say that they will enable the disputed "default to delete" option. JamieS93 17:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No Jamie, you have it all wrong. That, the whole not sticking your head out thing, is a very good reason to oppose. If you're too afraid to go against the grain in your RFA, or at least put some thought into why you're going with the grain, then I see no reason to support. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That I can certainly agree with. But candidates often get beaten up for making possibly inaccurate or bold statements, so they try to answer in accordance with consensus. And here you're opposing because this user won't abide by a controversial proposal. Just doesn't seem right. JamieS93 17:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jamie I have a lot of respect for you, (well I hope that is mutual), but just because it's controversial doesn't mean that they can't have some sort of opinion on it. I already noted that this wasn't the only reason I opposed, as the link to my criteria is provided. If this user had my confidence enough in other areas I wouldn't be opposing, but since they don't I see their opinion on BLPs to be my deciding factor. Note: I'm not the only person to support or oppose due to an editor's stance on the AFD BLP policy, so I'm wondering why you seemed attracted to my oppose... --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's anything wrong with opposing a candidate because they have a different opinion on an issue or policy. That's why we allow people to ask those questions. However, I personally don't see any reason to oppose and that's why I put my name in the support column. If the closing 'crat doesn't think Coffee's !vote should count then it can always be discounted. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is however wrong to oppose when they are asked to state a policy, state it correctly as it is, and the opposer think the policy ought to be otherwise, or incorrectly asserts without any reasonable foundation that the policy is otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Apologies Ron; as I think you have done some fine work here, and I do appreciate the efforts you've brought to our project. The views of those opposed above would perhaps push me towards a Neutral position; however, your response to Q.10 simply pushes me into the oppose section. While we don't currently have a strongly worded "no consensus = default to delete" policy, I personally believe that a "no consensus = default to keep" is a very bad direction for WP to be heading. I do try to find possible reasons to support the "keep" efforts on the majority of our articles; however, I think the WP:BLP issues are entirely too contentious, and too capable of doing real world damage to include them in our "keeper" group without some consensus to do so. — Ched : ? 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note; "no consensus = default to keep" isn't the direction WP is heading; it's where we've been for years. Attempts to change it have gained no traction. Tan | 39 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (out of sequence post). Hey Tan, thanks, but yes, I'm fully aware of these various policies. (wp:del, wp:afd, and perhaps most importantly wp:blp.) I've read them multiple times, and try to keep up with WP:UPDATE on a monthly basis in a meager effort to stay abreast of our current policies and practices. However, just because a situation exists, does not eliminate a possibility that we could improve these things. There are indeed many folks working to make some improvements to our BLP related issues - from those at FR, to editors attempting to deal with some 50,000 unreferenced BLP stubs. In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that even those working at a WMF level were concerned about our marginal BLP articles, and open to proposals for improving our project in these areas. While Jimbo himself has been quite outspoken in his desire to improve things in these regards, he is hardly the only one to voice his views. I think to suggest that Attempts to change it have gained no traction may be an error. Thank you for your feedback however, and kind regards. — Ched : ? 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify. I did look around all the policy pages for deletion. All the pages say "No consensus - default to keep" - the only reference I found to a BLP no consensus going to delete was here, where it states "Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete", since the question did not suggest that the subject had requested such action, I followed the current policy. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll tell you what I hate so much about your answer. You didn't put any thought into it, and from the sound of it you wouldn't put any thought into closing an AFD like this, you would just say "well the policy said so". I sometimes don't even oppose people for the stance that BLPs should default to keep, but when it seems as though you don't want to even take more than one look at our discussions on deletions, I can say with all my heart that you shouldn't be an admin. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the need to, once again in this Rfa, dispute the extraordinary polemics employed by Coffee. I previously protested this admin's angry rhetoric (please see the talk page, where the discussion was removed due to length) and I now do so again. Coffee's continued hostility verges on turpitude, and calls for a rebuke by anyone concerned with the status of the Wikipedia Rfa, which should be a showplace of decorum where we decide whether to grant extra powers, and instead is turning into a tawdry shouting match. Enough. Jusdafax 05:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch yourself there, seems like that's a personal attack. My comment above was perfectly within reason, yours I can't say the same for. To state my fears of this person becoming an admin, is allowed, and to tell this person directly why I think they shouldn't be an admin is actually applauded. I'd request that you stop trolling my comments here (i.e. badgering), and take a step back. You might even see that I'm not just opposing because of only the BLP answer, if you opened your eyes. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You ask me to stop "trolling", but then follow me to Support #62 with a harsh reply to my comment in supporting the reasoning of Material Scientist. My comment there in reply to yours will have to do for here as well. I now propose a truce: you stop with the hostility against this candidate (you have had your say) and I back off as well. Sound reasonable? Jusdafax 07:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an answer to Coffee - I did put plenty of thought into the process. I already knew the standard policy of "default to keep" for no concensus, but I hunted around and checked plenty of other pages, including quite a few successful RfA - but I did not want just to copy other answers, I wanted to make sure that I was not missing something as a few were claiming "default to delete" as policy. I have yet to find a proper policy page that states that. The question is a one-liner and makes giving a general answer more difficult, of course, we can all ignore all rules, but then I would ask what is the point of having defined policies which have been agreed by community consensus if we just ignore them - I might as well give every vandal that trashes a page a 4im warning and save some time. I agree that in some cases we might need to ignore the rules (and those occasions need to be decided by careful review), but the question was a general one, and therefore demanded a general answer. If so many editors are indeed hostile to the "default to keep" for BLP, then maybe it's time that the policy was revised. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ron, first let me apologize for adding to an already anxiety filled week. Normally I try to avoid outright opposing RfA candidates (perhaps a dozen or so in the 100+ that I've participated in), so I want to make sure I fully understand your views here. I also try to avoid long threads to candidates various sections and such - but your most recent comments above do offer me an opportunity to question my own understanding of your stance here. ...maybe it's time that the policy was revised.' - indeed, and there are ongoing efforts to improve things in these (BLP) areas. Since you have expressed an interest in working in the AfD areas, I want to ensure that I understand your thoughts completely here. If you are simply stating that our policy is "default to keep" rather than expressing an opinion you hold - please feel free to clarify. Let me ask directly: In matters related to marginal BLP articles where there are questions of notability, resourcing, or perhaps even WP:BLP1E; where the AfD does not establish clear consensus - is it your personal opinion that we should default to keep? Also, just a note, I'm not aware of who declared that "default to delete" was ever a policy; I certainly never made any such claim. While I do believe that it should be policy, and would fully support any such movements in that area - I have at no time stated that it is a current policy. Thank you for your time, and best regards. — Ched : ? 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I don't think there should be a default. How can a broad policy always work for such a diverse range of articles? I think every case needs to be decided on it's merits/de-merits. Which is why I said, originally, that one should consider relisting to try to gain community consensus - I want the community to decide. Failing that and if I felt that there really was "no consensus", then I feel we should try, if possible, to follow the policies laid down (which are currently default to keep - but could always be changed!). Going for a personal view, I think that it might be better to have some sort of specialist review panel, with some editors/admins who have a particular interest in BLP articles, for deciding very problematic cases - but that also would be a change of policy which would need debating and community consensus - and of course, providing there were enough people to volunteer for such a panel. With respect to marginal BLP articles where there are questions of notability and resourcing the guidelines laid out are quite clear that the closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies and therefore policy must be respected above individual opinions, so if the notability and sourcing were a serious issue, then one would have to give that greater weight, and deletion would probably be the result. With regard to WP:BLP1E then I would normally go (and I have reverted many editors trying to make a new BLP page from a redirect) for merging with the appropriate event, but like any policy there will always be a few cases where an article might be more appropriate. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. If people who do nothing but make automated edits are elevated to admin-ship, then I should be too. We don't want that. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He has five thousand non-automated edits. A far cry from "nothing". Just because you are crotchety doesn't mean you should be misrepresenting. Tan | 39 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with the personal attacks. Not that I expect anything else from you. Stay classy! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All we have accomplished here is that you a) do not recognize the difference between 0 and 5000, and b) do not know what constitutes a personal attack. Tan | 39 16:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop badgering the opposers Tan. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Put the stick down, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should stop "badgering" the supports too, then. Really, badgering is a meme used when you don't have an argument when someone rightfully challenges your comment. Majorly talk 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, you have almost as many edits to this page as the candidate, and the second highest overall. Maybe you should be the one backing off and doing something else. Majorly talk 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Majorly, I only commented on one support, and I wasn't badgering the supporter, I was commenting on Jusdafax's comment. Get your facts straight. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, since when did it matter how many times you edited a discussion? Is there a limit somewhere? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And Tan isn't badgering the opposes... your numerous comments here are showing an unhealthy position regarding this request. Majorly talk 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for moving this to the talk page. Jeepday (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another RFA goes into the books for case studies to torture RFB candidates. In closing this RFA I noticed that the general consensus was a sense of trust in Ronhjones as a contributive editor but trepidation regarding his history of automated edits. The question to be asked when closing any RFA is: Do the opposes demonstrate a clear concern that the candidate would be unfit for adminship?
On the subject of automated edits, the opposition and neutrals were divided into two groups. One group consisted of those who appreciated Ronhjones' contributions but believed he could have used more experience. In other words, the "better safe than sorry" group. Certainly there is nothing wrong with being cautious, and by weight of argument they were given their due. The other had very underdeveloped rationales that belied a certain unexplained prejudice against automated edits and the anti-vandal role.
It should be noted that the tools of an admin are very much oriented towards fighting vandalism: blocking vandals, protecting pages from vandalism, and deleting articles or edits made by vandals. Opposition based solely on a user's predominant editing habits, especially one oriented towards fighting vandalism, does not give the candidate positive feedback to improve themselves, and is actually very dangerous to the careful ecology we have in place to maintain this encyclopedia.
The other type of opposition was in relation to the candidate's views on the BLP policy. As opposed to certain notable examples of opposition in the past, this did appear to have a few supporters of this rationale to oppose. It's important to be clear that BLP is an extremely important policy here given Wikipedia's potential for defamation. However, in this case, what we see here is basically opposition based on difference in opinion. As I quote from WP:IAR?, it is important to "always [bear] in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you." Differences in opinion should not be the driving force in an oppose; it must demonstrate why good judgment is compromised in order for it to receive its full weight, and in this case it was not adequately done.
With these considerations in mind and the weight of consensus in mind, I have closed this RFA as successful. bibliomaniac15 00:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for providing a detailed rationale. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) A good explanation of your rationale, Bibliomaniac15. Thank you -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A well thought out and nicely articulated closure. Nice job biblio. NW (Talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A pile-on on the good rationale. Regardless of how RfA/Bs within the 'crat-discretion range close, a record of why they closed the way they did is important. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Julian said, thanks for providing a detailed rationale. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a thoughtful and reasonable decision. Personally I don't understand why people want the "mop," as it's called. Just a lot of headaches and criticism from what I can see. Ron was doing a fantastic job as a vandal fighter without it. But since he wants it, and now has it, I say the best of luck to him. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]