Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Morbidthoughts

Edit count for Morbidthoughts

User:Morbidthoughts

   run at Sat Aug 30 15:50:19 2008 GMT

   Image:                 3
   Mainspace              1748
   Talk:                  170
   User talk:             326
   User:                  26
   Wikipedia talk:        33
   Wikipedia:             372
   avg edits per page     3.25
   earliest               20:30, 8 September 2007
   number of unique pages 825
   total                  2678

   2007/9  133
   2007/10 57
   2007/11 66
   2007/12 222
   2008/1  362
   2008/2  146
   2008/3  308
   2008/4  241
   2008/5  286
   2008/6  242
   2008/7  206
   2008/8  409

   (green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
   denotes edits without an edit summary)

           Mainspace
   46 [2]Jenna Haze
   34 [3]AVN (magazine)
   32 [4]Steve Francis
   31 [5]Eva Angelina
   24 [6]Ashlynn Brooke
   23 [7]Sasha Grey
   22 [8]Naomi (porn star)
   22 [9]Dana DeArmond
   21 [10]Taylor Rain
   20 [11]Teagan Presley
   20 [12]Luscious Lopez
   18 [13]Christian XXX
   17 [14]Paulina James
   17 [15]Mia Rose (pornstar)
   17 [16]Shyla Stylez

          Talk:
   26 [17]Jenna Haze
   20 [18]Silvia Lancome
   6  [19]Haley Paige
   6  [20]Kelly Wells
   6  [21]Sasha Grey
   6  [22]Bobbi Starr
   5  [23]Raven Riley
   5  [24]Aria Giovanni
   4  [25]Ashlynn Brooke
   3  [26]Luscious Lopez
   3  [27]Caylian Curtis
   3  [28]Eli Cross
   3  [29]Hannah Harper
   3  [30]Dana DeArmond
   3  [31]Naomi Russell

               User:
   12 [32]Morbidthoughts
   6  [33]Morbidthoughts/Userboxes
   5  [34]Sdrtirs/Jaclyn Case
   2  [35]Gkleinman

        User talk:
   73 [36]Morbidthoughts
   18 [37]Tabercil
   10 [38]82.43.71.244
   8  [39]Epbr123
   7  [40]Gkleinman
   6  [41]Michaeltm99
   5  [42]Tepiii3
   4  [43]Kryptonite Kid
   4  [44]Hondo77
   4  [45]Dekkappai
   4  [46]Madjabuds
   4  [47]Esumtsaleht
   4  [48]Veldin963
   4  [49]Kappa
   3  [50]King Mop

                          Wikipedia:
   54 [51]WikiProject Pornography/Deletion
   12 [52]Requests for adminship/Morbidthoughts
   12 [53]Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand
   8  [54]Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
   8  [55]Articles for deletion/Angelique dos Santos
   8  [56]Articles for deletion/Clyda Rosen
   7  [57]Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 3
   6  [58]Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (3rd nomination)
   6  [59]Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination)
   6  [60]Articles for deletion/Mark�ta Belonoh�
   6  [61]Articles for deletion/T�mea V�gv�lgyi
   6  [62]WikiProject Pornography
   5  [63]Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
   5  [64]Sandbox
   5  [65]Articles for deletion/Tessa West

              Wikipedia talk:
   25 [66]WikiProject Pornography
   5  [67]WikiProject Pornography/Deletion
   2  [68]Notability (pornographic actors)

   If there were any problems, please [69]email Interiot or post at
   [70]User talk:Interiot.

The edit count was retrieved from this link at 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Question 5

The opposes for question #5 are among the most ridiculous I've ever seen. The candidate actually answered in his own words rather than parroting some stock answer, and this is a problem? Do you even realize how stupid such a question is, if you're going to be satisfied with an answer that can be cut-n-pasted from somewhere? Friday (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was stock answer I could cut and paste! Heh. :) Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost amusing. Funny how people are citing it as a lack of knowledge of "admin-related issues". The whole issue of "cool-down blocks" was invented by someone here a few months back as a new litmus test for candidates; not knowing the 'correct' answer shows that you have a lack of knowledge of RFA-related issues if anything. And it's not as if his answer is even wrong! It just belies the habit of RFA-regulars of reading everything literally, even if it's patently obvious that it's not intended to mean what they've decided to take it to mean. naerii 17:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be getting further and further from the intended goal of RFA, which is trying to gauge the clue level of the candidate. Maybe we should have a "request for request for adminship", in which you need to have your judgement vetted somehow before you're even allowed to participate in RFA. Our admin-mills and coaching programs seem to be encouraging clueless newbies to participate in RFA. This is very harmful; RFA is tricky enough without people going out of their way to lower the level of discourse here. Friday (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I respectfully disagree. I personally dislike the "trick question". [I believe that it was initially invented by Kurt to give him a reason to oppose.] However Wikipedia has numerous policies. No individual admin can be expected to know every policy. When admins communicate with other users, they need to be able to find and refer to relevant policies. Axl (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was invented by ArcAngel. That's one less thing we can blame Kurt for. naerii 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, nearly every important question that comes up can be answered with a general understanding of Wikipedia's goals, plus some plain-old common sense. I can't remember the last time I looked at a policy page to help me figure out how to handle any real situation. Friday (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy pages are what's known in some circles as "write-only documents". naerii 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]