Retrieved from toolserver.org at 13:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

Username:	Soap
User groups:	abusefilter, rollbacker
First edit:	Jan 08, 2006 12:24:19
Unique pages edited:	5,631
Average edits per page:	2.38
Live edits:	12,805
Deleted edits:	593
Total edits (including deleted):	13,398

Article		5597	43.71%
Talk		683	5.33%
User		1028	8.03%
User talk	2877	22.47%
Wikipedia	2239	17.49%
Wikipedia talk	231	1.80%
File		18	0.14%
File talk	11	0.09%
MediaWiki talk	29	0.23%
Template	51	0.40%
Template talk	31	0.24%
Help talk	1	0.01%
Category	1	0.01%
Category talk	2	0.02%
Portal		5	0.04%
Portal talk	1	0.01%

Monthly totals

2006/01    6    
2006/02    3    
2006/03    8    
2006/04    4    
2006/05    19    
2006/06    18    
2006/07    9    
2006/08    14    
2006/09    27    
2006/10    41    
2006/11    37    
2006/12    16    
2007/01    17    
2007/02    10    
2007/03    36    
2007/04    16    
2007/05    73    
2007/06    21    
2007/07    46    
2007/08    23    
2007/09    50    
2007/10    95    
2007/11    61    
2007/12    118    
2008/01    105    
2008/02    114    
2008/03    137    
2008/04    111    
2008/05    54    
2008/06    31    
2008/07    124    
2008/08    94    
2008/09    142    
2008/10    348    
2008/11    359    
2008/12    416    
2009/01    436    
2009/02    698    
2009/03    393    
2009/04    260    
2009/05    576    
2009/06    468    
2009/07    332    
2009/08    468    
2009/09    513    
2009/10    426    
2009/11    502    
2009/12    530    
2010/01    631    
2010/02    651    
2010/03    679    
2010/04    926    
2010/05    1265    
2010/06    248

Top edited pages
Article

    * 150 - Soap
    * 92 - Diaper
    * 84 - Pillow
    * 74 - Die_Lollipops
    * 60 - Autism
    * 57 - Lollipop
    * 56 - H.U.R.L.
    * 50 - List_of_people_on_the_autism_spectrum
    * 48 - Dora_the_Explorer
    * 44 - The_Raspberry_Ice_Cream_War


Talk

    * 36 - Asperger_syndrome
    * 31 - Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth
    * 26 - Autism_Speaks
    * 22 - Xkcd
    * 22 - Diaper
    * 18 - Autism
    * 15 - Human_height
    * 13 - Masturbation
    * 12 - Dora_the_Explorer
    * 12 - Soap


User

    * 363 - Soap
    * 167 - Soap/Sandbox
    * 41 - Soap/monobook.css
    * 39 - X!/RfX_Report
    * 37 - Soap/DIY
    * 19 - Soap/UVoD
    * 18 - Soap/Termitomyces_albuminosus
    * 17 - Soap/AfD
    * 16 - Soap/RfA
    * 16 - Soap/monobook.js


User talk

    * 46 - Soap
    * 39 - White_Shadows
    * 28 - Juliancolton
    * 27 - Soap/Archive_9
    * 23 - The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be
    * 19 - Sandbox_for_user_warnings
    * 19 - Eubulides
    * 18 - NuclearWarfare
    * 17 - Cacycle/wikEd
    * 14 - X!


Wikipedia

    * 394 - Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports
    * 275 - Edit_filter/False_positives
    * 135 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 106 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
    * 84 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot
    * 83 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 42 - Requests_for_page_protection
    * 37 - Edit_filter/Requested
    * 36 - Changing_username/Simple
    * 29 - Administrators'_noticeboard


Wikipedia talk

    * 85 - Edit_filter
    * 44 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 9 - User_pages
    * 9 - Username_policy
    * 6 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
    * 5 - Did_you_know
    * 4 - WikiProject_Cities
    * 4 - Requests_for_adminship/A_new_name_2008
    * 4 - Requests_for_comment/User_names
    * 4 - Today's_featured_article


File

    * 7 - Hurl_level_8.jpg
    * 4 - Dora_grows_up.jpg
    * 2 - EdinayaRossiya.jpg
    * 1 - Cyrillic_letter_Multiocular_O.png
    * 1 - Baboon_buttocks.jpg
    * 1 - Cyclone_Catarina_from_the_ISS_on_March_26_2004.JPG
    * 1 - Bugbear_Dark_Alliance.jpg
    * 1 - 800px-non-Admin_JollyRoger.GIF


File talk

    * 4 - Netherlands_map_large.png
    * 3 - WP_CHU_checklist.svg
    * 1 - Braces_smile_purple.jpg
    * 1 - Mature_flower_diagram.svg
    * 1 - Autistic-sweetiepie-boy-with-ducksinarow.jpg
    * 1 - Wikipe-tan_face.svg


MediaWiki talk

    * 23 - Titleblacklist
    * 5 - Spam-blacklist
    * 1 - Abusefilter-warning-skype


Template

    * 3 - Dollarsign/doc/todo
    * 3 - Introduction_to_Wikipedia
    * 2 - Infobox_language
    * 2 - RfA
    * 2 - Infobox_comic_book_title
    * 2 - SPIarchive_notice
    * 2 - Comics_infobox_sec/genre
    * 2 - Location_map_polarx
    * 2 - Bradshaw
    * 2 - 911ct


Template talk

    * 7 - Introduction_to_Wikipedia
    * 5 - User_Asperger
    * 4 - Did_you_know
    * 4 - Location_map_polarx
    * 3 - Infobox_Jews
    * 2 - Talkback
    * 2 - Retired
    * 1 - Copyvio
    * 1 - User_Asperger/Archive_1
    * 1 - Politics_box


Help talk

    * 1 - Edit_conflict


Category

    * 1 - Warsaw_Stock_Exchange


Category talk

    * 1 - Lists_of_songs
    * 1 - Hyphen_Luddites


Portal

    * 2 - Pervasive_Developmental_Disorders/Related_Articles
    * 1 - Current_events/2009_April_18
    * 1 - Dance/Intro
    * 1 - Current_events/2010_May_30


Portal talk

    * 1 - Featured_content

All this praise.. I'm wondering if Soap is now feeling pressured to live up to these lofty expectations of perfection. If and when he actually DOES make a minor screw-up it'll probably come as a shock to everyone get blown out of proportion! -- œ^™ 03:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but I certainly wouldn't hold it against him if he made a mistake. Everyone screws up sometimes, no matter how good they are. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll type up a thank-you statement on my talk page after the RfA is over; as for meeting people's expectations, I don't think anyone's expecting me to be perfect, but I will be very careful. —Soap— 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have, at amazing speed, surpassed my very hard requirements for an AUTOMATIC SUPPORT (Those requirements being, having over 100 supports and NEVER - even temporarily - having any opposes or neutrals.) -WarthogDemon 01:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well that's moronic. So your standards are that other people like the person? Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well I'm sure that there is a very low chance that all of those one hundred people are completely wrong that a user deserves adminship. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It would be moronic if that was the only way I'd ever support, but such is not the case. If there are over 100 supports and never any opposes or neutrals, I'm not going to search for any cons or any reasons not to support. Since, as SuperHamster says, if 100 people don't find concerns than it's unlikely I will. If a member doesn't meet those "standards" I may still support, it's just then that I browse through the contributions and base my judgment on that. Now, I do hope that what I just typed isn't chock-full of run-on sentences... -WarthogDemon 03:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You should seriously review the candidate for yourself and make up your own mind. Blindly supporting because of the nominator or because of other supporters is very dangerous and it's exactly the type of !voting that helped a certain banned user get through RfA. It is entirely possible that the 100 people voting before you missed something or didn't even bother to do a review because they trusted the nominator or the other people supporting. I don't want to say that it's moronic, but I do think it's very dangerous and I think you should review candidates yourself and make up your own mind (or not take a position at all). RfAs have got high support only to then swing around when a later user brings something to attention but if everyone was voting automatically after 100 supports those things wouldn't come to light until too late. Sarah 04:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I did not intend to start a dispute on here, nor do I think this is one, but apparently I have made myself seem more reckless than I actually am. I do indeed review candidates, and the circumstances of which I just blindly support almost never happen. But just to make sure, I decided to check through the archives to see how many admins in the past that would include. Out of 1000+ RFAs, the number of Admins who've had +100 supports, and never at any point had neutrals or opposes is: 9. That's less than 1%. Anyways, I'll stop debating this, as I don't want to spam this editor's page with this. I apologize if I come across as reckless and I want to assure you I do things with care. Honestly, with the majority of RFAs I look at, I usually find myself unable to make my mind. -WarthogDemon 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from project page