Username: ErikHaugen
User groups: reviewer
First edit: Mar 25, 2005 18:58:31
Unique pages edited: 2,755
Average edits per page: 2.16
Live edits: 5,103
Deleted edits: 839
Total edits (including deleted): 5,942
Namespace Totals
Article 1780 34.88%
Talk 435 8.52%
User 58 1.14%
User talk 1183 23.18%
Wikipedia 395 7.74%
Wikipedia talk 20 0.39%
File 1 0.02%
File talk 1 0.02%
Template 1079 21.14%
Template talk 149 2.92%
Category talk 1 0.02%
Book 1 0.02%
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2005/03 1
2005/04 0
2005/05 0
2005/06 1
2005/07 0
2005/08 8
2005/09 1
2005/10 0
2005/11 2
2005/12 4
2006/01 5
2006/02 1
2006/03 3
2006/04 3
2006/05 10
2006/06 9
2006/07 1
2006/08 4
2006/09 10
2006/10 3
2006/11 8
2006/12 0
2007/01 2
2007/02 3
2007/03 14
2007/04 3
2007/05 1
2007/06 1
2007/07 2
2007/08 2
2007/09 0
2007/10 9
2007/11 6
2007/12 2
2008/01 3
2008/02 5
2008/03 1
2008/04 17
2008/05 7
2008/06 0
2008/07 2
2008/08 0
2008/09 0
2008/10 0
2008/11 2
2008/12 1
2009/01 6
2009/02 3
2009/03 11
2009/04 7
2009/05 24
2009/06 7
2009/07 3
2009/08 6
2009/09 7
2009/10 6
2009/11 17
2009/12 28
2010/01 165
2010/02 95
2010/03 45
2010/04 1
2010/05 65
2010/06 243
2010/07 30
2010/08 331
2010/09 709
2010/10 1056
2010/11 919
2010/12 602
2011/01 526
2011/02 34
Article 188 edits 20.46%
Talk 49 edits 5.33%
User 4 edits 0.44%
User talk 38 edits 4.13%
Wikipedia 18 edits 1.96%
Wikipedia talk 5 edits 0.54%
Template 546 edits 59.41%
Template talk 71 edits 7.73%
Top edited pages
(hide)Article
* 18 - Alexgeorgea
* 15 - Robert_Battey
* 14 - Zayn_Malik
* 14 - Acrophyseter
* 11 - C++_Technical_Report_1
* 11 - Ericssonite
* 11 - Guillaume_Seignac
* 9 - Sanajeh
* 9 - Schistomerus
* 9 - Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.
Talk
* 21 - Axial_precession_(astronomy)
* 19 - Lycaon_pictus
* 8 - Fight_Club_(film)
* 7 - Sonia_Sotomayor
* 6 - Comparison_of_programming_paradigms
* 5 - Talzhemir
* 5 - Virginia_Haussegger
* 5 - Botryococcus_braunii
* 5 - Oreodont
* 5 - Robert_Rowthorn
User
* 31 - ErikHaugen
* 7 - Robotnick2
* 2 - Istcl
* 2 - Cyrixware
* 2 - Timotheus_Canens/Kissle/Requests
* 2 - Citation_bot/bugs
* 2 - TheodoreNg/Food_mixing
* 1 - ErikHaugen/userboxes/DeletedEdit
* 1 - ErikHaugen/EditCounterOptIn.js
* 1 - ErikHaugen/userboxes/Reviewer
User talk
* 130 - ErikHaugen
* 14 - Minna_Sora_no_Shita
* 10 - Drvgaikwad
* 8 - Spartaz
* 8 - Kleopatra
* 7 - Ciaran1991
* 6 - Ohnoitsjamie
* 6 - Cavai_Dobrescu_Marius
* 6 - 67.169.68.203
* 6 - Dinoguy2
Wikipedia
* 20 - Articles_for_deletion/FastCode
* 12 - Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Snottywong/userboxes/...
* 11 - Requested_moves
* 9 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
* 9 - Articles_for_deletion/C10k_problem
* 9 - Articles_for_deletion/Largest_prehistoric_organism...
* 9 - Sandbox
* 8 - Articles_for_deletion/GLPI
* 5 - Requests_for_comment/Jclemens
* 5 - Requests_for_adminship/Waldir
Wikipedia talk
* 5 - Reviewing
* 4 - WikiProject_Primates
* 2 - Naming_conventions_(fauna)
* 2 - Requested_moves
* 2 - WikiProject_Mammals
* 1 - WikiProject_Algae
* 1 - Requests_for_adminship
* 1 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
* 1 - WikiProject_Animals
* 1 - Requests_for_comment/Jclemens
File
* 1 - Gorillaz-Doncamatic_art.jpg
File talk
* 1 - Precession_torque.jpg
Template
* 47 - X6
* 16 - X7
* 8 - Taxonomy/Schistomerus
* 8 - Taxonomy/Mammaliaformes/Amniota
* 7 - Automatic_taxobox/doc/Taxonomy_templates
* 7 - Taxonomy/Acrophyseter
* 6 - Taxonomy/Bignonia
* 5 - Taxonomy/Celastrales
* 5 - Taxonomy/Elapidae
* 5 - Taxonomy/Gomphotheriidae
Template talk
* 121 - Automatic_taxobox
* 9 - Taxobox
* 3 - Extinct
* 2 - Taxonomy/Avialae/skip
* 1 - Taxonomy/Afrotheria
* 1 - Taxonomy/Serpentes
* 1 - Taxonomy/Elephantidae
* 1 - Taxonomy/Celastrales
* 1 - Requested_move
* 1 - Automatic_taxobox/doc/Taxonomy_templates
Category talk
* 1 - Counts_of_Bigorre
Book
* 1 - Biochemistry:_An_introduction
Articles created[edit]
For some reason the toolserver's been running slow, so here's the list of non-redirect articles created by the candidate:
- Lycaon_sekowei
- Cyanea_(plant)
- Acrophyseter
- Phaennidae
- Pterodon_(mammal)
- Anaxidia
- Sanajeh
- Jennifer_Widom
- Photonic_crystal_biosensor
- Soy_nut
- C++_Technical_Report_1
-28bytes (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Question 10[edit]
Just to respond to Reaper Eternal's concerns, I was quite careful not to ask the candidate to reveal their IP address. Rather, given that the candidate has indicated that they have been involved in disputes as an IP, I was asking whether they would be comfortable disclosing them to a functionary. This kind of thing has been done before (see Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam, for example) where there have been privacy issues with past accounts. -- Lear's Fool 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry! I had thought that you were requesting his IP to check out his IP contribs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Q12[edit]
Q12 had me confused. I mistakenly thought it was from User:FloNight. Is Q12 a reasonable question? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question 12 is a fair question: history merges can be tricky so it's at least valid to ask a candidate what tools would need to be employed to carry out out successfully. But as for oppose number 7... --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's reasonable in the sense that it's not a bad idea to quiz the candidate on his understanding of how history merges work, and what specific admin tools would be needed to carry them out. (And the candidate seems to understand it just fine, given the answer.) The oppose based on the answer is a little baffling, though. 28bytes (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted contributions[edit]
The thing that makes this candidate stand out for me is the number of deleted contributions. EdJohnston has reviewed ten which he is happy with, but could anyone give me a larger overview? Roughly how may edits does he make before the article is deleted, are they all tags, does he make any suggestions on the talk page? Crucially, is it him suggestion the deletion? (if he is only making 1-2 edits including say a speedy tag, that would really have a bearing on my judgement)...Worm 08:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have looked at 30 at random - in general the tagging is correct as EdJohnston said. Edits per deleted article average around 2 (including adding speedy) - they tend to be new(ish) pages - hoaxes, very poor blp, other A7, etc. I saw little to none additions to the talk pages. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. Sometimes I put a {{refimprove}} on the page and a note on the orig. author's page, then a while later, if it seems the author has left and doesn't have a chance to work on the page anymore I put an A7 or blpprod or whatever on it. A chunk of these deleted edits are long conversations with the author on the talk page, but like Ronhjones said this is probably rare; usually the original author does not engage, or only engages on the user talk page. Hot Europa, a made-up neologism, was one example, I think; I removed the a7, then throughout the other deletion processes we talked to him quite a bit on the talk page, if I recall correctly. A few of them are also layout/formatting improvements, wikiproject templates on the talk page, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you both for responding. Worm 08:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. Sometimes I put a {{refimprove}} on the page and a note on the orig. author's page, then a while later, if it seems the author has left and doesn't have a chance to work on the page anymore I put an A7 or blpprod or whatever on it. A chunk of these deleted edits are long conversations with the author on the talk page, but like Ronhjones said this is probably rare; usually the original author does not engage, or only engages on the user talk page. Hot Europa, a made-up neologism, was one example, I think; I removed the a7, then throughout the other deletion processes we talked to him quite a bit on the talk page, if I recall correctly. A few of them are also layout/formatting improvements, wikiproject templates on the talk page, etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose 7[edit]
Oppose 7 got very nasty very quickly, so I removed the conversation to here, in hope that it will defuse the situation. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, there are 11 other opposes at the time of this writing, and most all of them are making the same few important points. Maybe, just maybe, we can go out on a limb here and assume that Fly by Night found one of those points to be of concern? Just so you know, the easiest way to make sure that someone does not change their vote is to harass them. Stop treating Fly by Night like an idiot, stop piling on after Fly by Night said that he had other concerns and said that he wasn't coming back to read the pile on or change his vote. Enough is enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- If it was something that simple, why couldn't Fly by Night have simply said so? Sorry, but reading over this thread, it looks like a classic "Shit and Run" - leap to a hasty judgment, react furiously when someone jumps to the top of Graham's oh-so-important pyramid ("you may disagree with me but it's a valid concern and you guys are just teaming up on me"), then basically give a one-two-three knockout blow of "stop hounnnnnnding meeeeee :(" followed by "well okay maybe the first thing i said wasn't a valid concern but - BUT - there's totally some other really good reasons for my oppose, but I'm totally not going to give them, they're top secret, sorry mates, not my decision, but trust me it's incredibly valid and my dad the astronaut agrees", followed by the classic, Cartmanesque "screw you guys, I'm going home" knockout blow. Considering how admirably FbN responded when people, you know, explicitly refuted his central point, where else do you really expect them to go but the bottom of the pyramid? Badger Drink (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd ask you to remove that long rant, as it is inaccurate and borders easily on a personal attack, but I doubt you'd see it that way and do so. There are plenty of responses I'd love to give to the rant, however most of them lie at the bottom of the pyramid, and some of them would get be blocked. Suffice to say that I can't remember ever seeing you add value to an RfA, and wonder aloud if you come here just to pick fights. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd ask you to remove that self-righteous screed, as it literally adds nothing to the discussion ("your statement borders easily on a personal attack [because I said so], and there are plenty of things that I could say, but I'm not going to say, you just have to trust that I thought them with all my living might"), but since you've never found a single statement of mine adding value to an RfA, I cannot help but assume you're unable to read. I don't come here to pick fights, but with so many people so very eager to tilt at every windmill they encounter, I suppose it's inevitable - provided a very, very loose definition of what constitutes a "fight" "picked". Badger Drink (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd ask you to remove that long rant, as it is inaccurate and borders easily on a personal attack, but I doubt you'd see it that way and do so. There are plenty of responses I'd love to give to the rant, however most of them lie at the bottom of the pyramid, and some of them would get be blocked. Suffice to say that I can't remember ever seeing you add value to an RfA, and wonder aloud if you come here just to pick fights. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sven, I do believe that when a person chooses to oppose an admin candidate, they owe to have a valid argument. I do not believe that FbN's refusal to elaborate on valid reasons for his opposition was respectful towards the candidate. The subtle hint that the candidate is unable to take criticism is impolite, to say the least. And if FbN found similar concern with other opposers, why didn't he say so? We are not omniscient. I also resent your accusations of harrassment and "treating Fly by Night like an idiot" when I did not do so. —Dark 07:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- If it was something that simple, why couldn't Fly by Night have simply said so? Sorry, but reading over this thread, it looks like a classic "Shit and Run" - leap to a hasty judgment, react furiously when someone jumps to the top of Graham's oh-so-important pyramid ("you may disagree with me but it's a valid concern and you guys are just teaming up on me"), then basically give a one-two-three knockout blow of "stop hounnnnnnding meeeeee :(" followed by "well okay maybe the first thing i said wasn't a valid concern but - BUT - there's totally some other really good reasons for my oppose, but I'm totally not going to give them, they're top secret, sorry mates, not my decision, but trust me it's incredibly valid and my dad the astronaut agrees", followed by the classic, Cartmanesque "screw you guys, I'm going home" knockout blow. Considering how admirably FbN responded when people, you know, explicitly refuted his central point, where else do you really expect them to go but the bottom of the pyramid? Badger Drink (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Close call: closing rationale?[edit]
This was a marginal RfA, it was closed at at 1:24 pm, Today (UTC+7) and a further four supports were received after its official closure time of 09:02 (UTC+7). I do not feel strongly either way about the bureaucrat's closure; however, as this was marginal, I do nevertheless feel that a few words of rationale may be helpful to those of us who are left wondering why it went one way or the other. I have asked Kingturtle if he could offer those few words. --Kudpung (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Done Kingturtle = (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
I really appreciate the effort people put in to this discussion. Obviously many of these comments were formed after careful examination and deliberation; thanks for taking the time to do that! As I said, I am humbled by the trust that many of you have put in me here. I will take the advice given and proceed carefully; please feel more than free to offer advice and admonishment. I realize this was a very close discussion, and I appreciate Kingturtle's thoughtful comments in the close. Thank you all, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)