Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jéské Couriano 2
Username: Jéské Couriano
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Aug 03, 2006 07:48:11
Unique pages edited: 4,746
Average edits per page: 4.57
Live edits: 20,057
Deleted edits: 1,625
Total edits (including deleted): 21,682
Namespace Totals
Article 4509 22.56%
Talk 2146 10.74%
User 556 2.78%
User talk 5904 29.55%
Wikipedia 6001 30.03%
Wikipedia talk 767 3.84%
File 4 0.02%
MediaWiki talk 36 0.18%
Template 38 0.19%
Template talk 11 0.06%
Help talk 1 0.01%
Category 6 0.03%
Portal 4 0.02%
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2006/08 47
2006/09 18
2006/10 78
2006/11 245
2006/12 190
2007/01 173
2007/02 292
2007/03 731
2007/04 400
2007/05 635
2007/06 504
2007/07 283
2007/08 137
2007/09 330
2007/10 1049
2007/11 664
2007/12 718
2008/01 1039
2008/02 850
2008/03 920
2008/04 909
2008/05 454
2008/06 193
2008/07 285
2008/08 186
2008/09 262
2008/10 378
2008/11 82
2008/12 221
2009/01 463
2009/02 199
2009/03 327
2009/04 123
2009/05 309
2009/06 240
2009/07 226
2009/08 209
2009/09 193
2009/10 316
2009/11 255
2009/12 240
2010/01 680
2010/02 443
2010/03 280
2010/04 329
2010/05 432
2010/06 229
2010/07 76
2010/08 321
2010/09 178
2010/10 100
2010/11 23
2010/12 143
2011/01 153
2011/02 117
2011/03 283
2011/04 199
2011/05 114
2011/06 198
2011/07 96
2011/08 216
Top edited pages
Article
128 - Pikachu
85 - Dungeons_&_Dragons
61 - Super_Smash_Bros._(series)
47 - Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl
46 - List_of_Pokémon_(241–260)
45 - No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
44 - Pokémon_Diamond_and_Pearl
43 - Axolotl
42 - Smegma
41 - Lucario
Talk
196 - List_of_Pokémon_(241–260)
142 - Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl
118 - Mudkip/Archive02
109 - Super_Smash_Bros._(series)/Archive_13
76 - 4chan
68 - Pokémon_Diamond_and_Pearl
61 - Pikachu
58 - Pokémon
45 - Dungeons_&_Dragons/Archive_6
42 - Smegma
User
147 - Jéské_Couriano
32 - Jéské_Couriano/Remedy_Count
14 - Bibliomaniac15/How_many_Wikipedians_does_it_take_t...
8 - Jéské_Couriano/monobook.js
8 - Jéské_Couriano/UBX
7 - Jéské_Couriano/monobook.css
6 - V-Dash
5 - Marnifrances
5 - UBX/BadBanner
5 - SLJCOAAATR_1
User talk
547 - Jéské_Couriano/Archive_3
224 - Jéské_Couriano/Archive_5
219 - Jéské_Couriano/Archive_7
217 - Jéské_Couriano/Archive_8
140 - Jéské_Couriano/Archive_9
118 - Jéské_Couriano/Archive_6
111 - V-Dash
106 - Alison
95 - Jéské_Couriano/Archive_4
27 - Rikara
Wikipedia
1374 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
1093 - Requests_for_page_protection
856 - Changing_username/Simple
442 - Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports
208 - Administrators'_noticeboard
134 - Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011
82 - Reference_desk/Computing
57 - Village_pump_(policy)
55 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
51 - Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Grawp
Wikipedia talk
148 - Pending_changes/Straw_poll
83 - WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons
75 - WikiProject_Pokémon
69 - WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_15
60 - WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_18
45 - WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_19
29 - Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011
22 - Trading_card_game/Archive_1
19 - Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action
13 - Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
File
2 - 1933_Nobel_Peace_Prize_awarded_to_Norman_Angell.JP...
2 - The_Parched_Sea_novel_cover.jpg
MediaWiki talk
35 - Spam-blacklist
1 - Common.css
Template
5 - Destroy_All_Humans!
4 - Uw-samename
4 - Bot
3 - Amino_acid_metabolic_pathology
2 - Pokémon
2 - Hcp
1 - Bram_Stoker
1 - Update_after
1 - Columns-end
1 - US_War_on_Terror
Template talk
4 - RFPP
3 - Bot
2 - Uw-aeblock
1 - Pokémon
1 - Wikibreak
Help talk
1 - Using_talk_pages
Category
2 - Requests_for_unblock
2 - Sports_controversies
1 - Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Peterjohnbrennan
1 - The_Muppets_characters
Portal
1 - Current_events/2008_April_29
1 - Contents/People_and_self/Intro
1 - Classical_Civilisation
1 - Contents/Overview/Culture_and_the_arts
Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: Ironholds' oppose
- Strong oppose, notwithstanding Keepscase's oppose above The only blatant problem I regularly see at RfA is keepscases. Jeske's record is one of, to put it bluntly, hot-headedness; he was desysopped for losing his judgment when things get difficult, and being an admin can get really damn difficult. In my dealings with him, I've yet to get the impression that this is something he's dealt with - rather, I get the impression that he's not messed about simply because he doesn't have the tools that would allow him to. Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nice personal attack there based on a perfectly reasonable oppose vote. How the HELL are you an administrator? Keepscases (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry; I should have made clear that my issue is with what you say as opposed to you personally. I rephrase as "the only blatant problem I regularly see at RfA is Keepscases' opposes". Happy? Ironholds (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- In general I'm a happy person, but I certainly think you're a poor choice for an administrator. Please list three of my oppose votes you take issue with, and include their dates. Keepscases (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- seriously? Fine. this, this and this. I would suggest if you want to further discuss this issue you take it to a talkpage rather than blow up RfA with it. Personally, I don't particularly care; I think we both know (and everybody else knows) that by now your "his userbox expresses an opinion" and "Carpet not matching the drapes? Blatant problem, can never trust this user regardless of anything else he's doing" opposes are par for the course, and the beliefs that lie behind them are not going to be changed (particularly by someone who is as poor an admin as me). Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I stand by each one of those opposes, and I'm also aware of who looks bad in this little exchange. Keepscases (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good for you. Moving on now. Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I stand by each one of those opposes, and I'm also aware of who looks bad in this little exchange. Keepscases (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- seriously? Fine. this, this and this. I would suggest if you want to further discuss this issue you take it to a talkpage rather than blow up RfA with it. Personally, I don't particularly care; I think we both know (and everybody else knows) that by now your "his userbox expresses an opinion" and "Carpet not matching the drapes? Blatant problem, can never trust this user regardless of anything else he's doing" opposes are par for the course, and the beliefs that lie behind them are not going to be changed (particularly by someone who is as poor an admin as me). Ironholds (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- In general I'm a happy person, but I certainly think you're a poor choice for an administrator. Please list three of my oppose votes you take issue with, and include their dates. Keepscases (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry; I should have made clear that my issue is with what you say as opposed to you personally. I rephrase as "the only blatant problem I regularly see at RfA is Keepscases' opposes". Happy? Ironholds (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nice personal attack there based on a perfectly reasonable oppose vote. How the HELL are you an administrator? Keepscases (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
pile-on/creationism/whatever it's off topic discussion
- What is the benefit of pile on oppose? Beeblebrox posted a valid observation, which could be considered sufficient. All after, should check their motives! IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps to encourage the candidate to withdraw? Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let them pile on. For that matter, if you truly have an issue with me being an admin again, it's not going to hurt my feelings if you oppose. What offends me are the opposers going neutral for my sake. And, to make things clear, I have no intent of withdrawing - for the 20 reasons in this section and those to come. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I already have opposed. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- That part was more aimed at My76Strat, Malleus. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- RfA is a game. I've got no problem with what's called incivility on here, but the fact is that any RfA candidate needs to be aware of the sensibilities of the small-minded, many of them children, and many convinced that the world was created a few thousand years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is RfA really an appropriate venue for religious criticism? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not, and Malleus' comment seems a bit... dismissive at the least of newer users. I admit I am an atheist myself (I don't touch religious articles if I can help it) but I don't characterize new users as children who've only been taught Young Earth Creationism. —Jeremy (v^_^v Contributions) 03:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Who mentioned religion? Is creationism now a religion? And I don't recall having said anything about new users. Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)o
- You cannot criticize majore beliefs held by certain religions without (at the very least indirectly) criticizing the religion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point, therefore I can only assume that you're an American. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I am an American, that fact could easily have been found by glancing at my userpage. I believe the generalization was a little unnecessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point, therefore I can only assume that you're an American. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot criticize majore beliefs held by certain religions without (at the very least indirectly) criticizing the religion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Who mentioned religion? Is creationism now a religion? And I don't recall having said anything about new users. Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)o
- It's not, and Malleus' comment seems a bit... dismissive at the least of newer users. I admit I am an atheist myself (I don't touch religious articles if I can help it) but I don't characterize new users as children who've only been taught Young Earth Creationism. —Jeremy (v^_^v Contributions) 03:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- MF, you seem to enjoy using this platform to evade civility, while packing as much cynicism as a concise comment is capable of holding. Have you ever considered another approach? My76Strat (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Have I ever considered not telling the truth as I see it? No. And I never will. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, You can't verify many things you state! Why not keep your bias out of this venue? My76Strat (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why not restrict your observations to those things that you actually have some some understanding of? Apart from the obvious, that it would exclude you from commenting on anything? Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Malleus, there is a major difference in calling thins as you see them and reacting without tact. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you believe that you've "reacted with tact"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I believe it is impossible to be completely tactful in reminding someone to use tact; however, I do think that I have kept my comments as respectful and tactful as possible. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you believe that you've "reacted with tact"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, You can't verify many things you state! Why not keep your bias out of this venue? My76Strat (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Have I ever considered not telling the truth as I see it? No. And I never will. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is RfA really an appropriate venue for religious criticism? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- RfA is a game. I've got no problem with what's called incivility on here, but the fact is that any RfA candidate needs to be aware of the sensibilities of the small-minded, many of them children, and many convinced that the world was created a few thousand years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- That part was more aimed at My76Strat, Malleus. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I already have opposed. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let them pile on. For that matter, if you truly have an issue with me being an admin again, it's not going to hurt my feelings if you oppose. What offends me are the opposers going neutral for my sake. And, to make things clear, I have no intent of withdrawing - for the 20 reasons in this section and those to come. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps to encourage the candidate to withdraw? Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is the benefit of pile on oppose? Beeblebrox posted a valid observation, which could be considered sufficient. All after, should check their motives! IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)