Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Scetoaux 3
Edit count for Scetoaux
[edit]User:Scetoaux
run at Sat Aug 23 03:05:36 2008 GMT
Category: 2
Image: 11
Mainspace 2376
MediaWiki talk: 2
Portal: 1
Talk: 134
Template talk: 3
Template: 20
User talk: 1208
User: 342
Wikipedia talk: 75
Wikipedia: 610
avg edits per page 1.52
earliest 03:09, 7 March 2006
number of unique pages 3139
total 4784
2006/3 11
2006/4 0
2006/5 0
2006/6 0
2006/7 7
2006/8 11
2006/9 96
2006/10 0
2006/11 0
2006/12 7
2007/1 1
2007/2 2
2007/3 1
2007/4 0
2007/5 0
2007/6 0
2007/7 0
2007/8 39
2007/9 7
2007/10 4
2007/11 3
2007/12 0
2008/1 4
2008/2 276
2008/3 913
2008/4 792
2008/5 1538
2008/6 694
2008/7 337
2008/8 41
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
138 [2]Civil Air Patrol
15 [3]Missouri University of Science and Technology Nuclear Reactor
15 [4]L-Tronics
11 [5]Cadet grades and insignia of the Civil Air Patrol
11 [6]Continuum (instrument)
9 [7]Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol
9 [8]Dude
9 [9]Maryland Wing Civil Air Patrol
7 [10]Gucci Mane
7 [11]History of mathematics
7 [12]Billy Mitchell Award
6 [13]Cactus
5 [14]Maryland High School Assessments
5 [15]Michael Romeo
5 [16]4chan
Talk:
20 [17]Civil Air Patrol
6 [18]Project Chanology
5 [19]Emergency service
4 [20]Justin Timberlake
3 [21]Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol
3 [22]Nuclear weapon design
3 [23]Miley Cyrus
3 [24]Depleted uranium
3 [25]Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance
3 [26]Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol
2 [27]Machinae Supremacy
2 [28]USS Forrestal (CV-59)
2 [29]Execution of Saddam Hussein
2 [30]Gina Bold
2 [31]Jessica Dub�
Category:
2 [32]Wikipedia requested photographs
Image:
3 [33]Story.crash.sequence.jpg
2 [34]4chan front page.png
2 [35]Nagasakibomb.jpg
MediaWiki talk:
2 [36]Watchlist-details
Template:
4 [37]Vandalism information
3 [38]User AP Student
2 [39]Infobox Reactor
2 [40]Cent
2 [41]User browser:iPod Touch
Template talk:
2 [42]Did you know
User:
140 [43]Scetoaux
69 [44]Scetoaux/Admin coaching
20 [45]Scetoaux/monobook.js
17 [46]Scetoaux/Sandbox
16 [47]Scetoaux/TalkHeader
14 [48]Scetoaux/Collapsible
11 [49]Scetoaux/Nav
8 [50]Scetoaux/huggle.css
3 [51]UBX/AFauxc9
2
[52]Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator i
ntervention against vandalism
2 [53]UBX/AFauxo4
2 [54]Barneca/Requests for Jimboship/Barneca
2 [55]UBX/AFauxo3
2 [56]PHDrillSergeant/Userboxes/User AFauxc1
2 [57]UBX/USAFo10
User talk:
64 [58]Scetoaux
12 [59]Keeper76
11 [60]Malleus Fatuorum
9 [61]Bongwarrior
8 [62]Twaz
8 [63]Chrislk02
7 [64]Huntster
6 [65]NCurse
5 [66]Rau J
5 [67]Obaidz96
5 [68]QueenMoon555
4 [69]Milk's Favorite Cookie
4 [70]Morbidthoughts
4 [71]Revolving Bugbear
4 [72]Bdoegai
Wikipedia:
92 [73]Administrator intervention against vandalism
40 [74]Usernames for administrator attention
37 [75]Requests for page protection
19 [76]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
18 [77]Administrators' noticeboard
10 [78]Wikiquette alerts
10 [79]Articles for deletion/Anonymous (group)
10 [80]Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3
9 [81]Peer review/Civil Air Patrol/archive2
8 [82]Requests for adminship/Scetoaux 2
8 [83]Featured article candidates/Civil Air Patrol/archive2
8 [84]Requests for adminship/Scetoaux
7 [85]Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching
7 [86]Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 5
6 [87]Requests for adminship/Hersfold 3
Wikipedia talk:
32 [88]Requests for adminship
8 [89]Twinkle/Bugs
5 [90]Requests for adminship/TomStar81 3
4 [91]Administrators' noticeboard
4 [92]Blocking policy
3 [93]RfA Review
3 [94]Requests for adminship/Good Olfactory
3 [95]Requests for adminship/Gwynand
2 [96]Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3
2 [97]WikiProject Amateur radio
2 [98]Sandbox
2 [99]Requests for adminship/Shoessss 2
2 [100]Vandalism
If there were any problems, please [101]email Interiot or post at
[102]User talk:Interiot.
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 03:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
My support !vote
[edit]My apologies to those participating in this RFA. I did not mean for this comment to be a personal attack against. User:Kmweber I meant it as a parody of his usual vote which has been done before. I see now that there is a consensus that it was a personal attack. I thought it might be more humorous then the usual "per nom" support votes. I take RFA very seriously but believe that only "opposes" need strong arguments because "support" is the default AGF position. I see now that even support !votes should still be professionally written if not strong arguments like opposes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- The "Kurt Apologist Cabal" is freakin' annoying. Tan ǀ 39 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- The "it's ok to attack Kurt Cabal" is freaking annoying.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fairminded criticism comes in a lot of forms. I'm not defending this particular instance but we do have a habit of imposing a bubble around Kurt which doesn't seem to be imposed around many other users. When Kurt opposes an RfA for some opaque or confrontational reason it isn't disruptive enough to redact but when editors call him on his opposes their concern is shuttled to the talk page as quickly as possible. I understand we need to keep RfA's from being derailed but the manner in which criticism (fair and unfair) of Kurt is dealt is sub-standard. This isn't any particular editor's fault. It stems from some limitations on process controls in wikipedia. We have little to no recourse against editors who impede but do not disrupt process actions (or articles in general). We don't have effective means to deal with low level non-acute issues if the editors in question don't violate some other policy (in that sense, we are like the Fed's before RICO, we have to bust Al Capone on income tax evasion). The impact of this on RfA so far has been disappointing. Make fun of Kurt (that is to say, step explicitly outside the bounds of stated policy and the response will be quick). Make a post that is a vague denigration of the candidate (either the self-nom post or the CDB post where an admin points to policy) and very little will happen, even if this occurs with the vast majority of RfA's. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The opinion of some seems to be that "drama" is to be avoided at all costs. As I pointed out on the main project page, "drama for drama's sake" is to be avoided, it's what trolls do and unfortunately, I may be guilty of it in this case. What we shouldn't do is stifle valid good faith opinions (or their rebuttals) or push them to the side simply because they may cause "drama". People have a right to their opinions and others should have a right to impeach those opinions, especially if they come in the form of an "Oppose". No, we shouldn't be trying to silence Kurt, nor should we be trying to silence those who reply in rebuttal. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- You have every right to "impeach" the opinions, but there is a difference between impeaching an opinion and attacking the opinion holder. I've challenged Kurt on a number of his opposes, because I think most of them are lacking any subsinative merit. Keep it to his rationale and I'll support your right to debate him. Make it personal, then I won't, especially, when it is belittling and intentionally offensive to Kurt---which your comment was. IMO, it crossed the line.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- In that case each of those votes in RfA should be challenged for what it is, self-centered, disruptive, high-handed and hurtful. And it's awfully hard to say that about an opinion without attacking the holder. Protonk (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- And I have less problem with the above, than the mocking belittling comments I that sometimes roar their ugly head here. If they are "self-centered,
disruptive, high-handed and hurtful" then feel free to call him on those grounds. But realize that the disruption, comes generally not from Kurt, but from others---which is why I scratched it out.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- And I have less problem with the above, than the mocking belittling comments I that sometimes roar their ugly head here. If they are "self-centered,
- In that case each of those votes in RfA should be challenged for what it is, self-centered, disruptive, high-handed and hurtful. And it's awfully hard to say that about an opinion without attacking the holder. Protonk (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- You have every right to "impeach" the opinions, but there is a difference between impeaching an opinion and attacking the opinion holder. I've challenged Kurt on a number of his opposes, because I think most of them are lacking any subsinative merit. Keep it to his rationale and I'll support your right to debate him. Make it personal, then I won't, especially, when it is belittling and intentionally offensive to Kurt---which your comment was. IMO, it crossed the line.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The opinion of some seems to be that "drama" is to be avoided at all costs. As I pointed out on the main project page, "drama for drama's sake" is to be avoided, it's what trolls do and unfortunately, I may be guilty of it in this case. What we shouldn't do is stifle valid good faith opinions (or their rebuttals) or push them to the side simply because they may cause "drama". People have a right to their opinions and others should have a right to impeach those opinions, especially if they come in the form of an "Oppose". No, we shouldn't be trying to silence Kurt, nor should we be trying to silence those who reply in rebuttal. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fairminded criticism comes in a lot of forms. I'm not defending this particular instance but we do have a habit of imposing a bubble around Kurt which doesn't seem to be imposed around many other users. When Kurt opposes an RfA for some opaque or confrontational reason it isn't disruptive enough to redact but when editors call him on his opposes their concern is shuttled to the talk page as quickly as possible. I understand we need to keep RfA's from being derailed but the manner in which criticism (fair and unfair) of Kurt is dealt is sub-standard. This isn't any particular editor's fault. It stems from some limitations on process controls in wikipedia. We have little to no recourse against editors who impede but do not disrupt process actions (or articles in general). We don't have effective means to deal with low level non-acute issues if the editors in question don't violate some other policy (in that sense, we are like the Fed's before RICO, we have to bust Al Capone on income tax evasion). The impact of this on RfA so far has been disappointing. Make fun of Kurt (that is to say, step explicitly outside the bounds of stated policy and the response will be quick). Make a post that is a vague denigration of the candidate (either the self-nom post or the CDB post where an admin points to policy) and very little will happen, even if this occurs with the vast majority of RfA's. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The "it's ok to attack Kurt Cabal" is freaking annoying.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)