Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh

Username: Skomorokh
User groups: autoreviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Sep 08, 2006 23:00:45
Unique articles edited: 13,706
Average edits per page: 3.00
Total edits (including deleted): 41,122
Deleted edits: 2,965
Live edits: 38,157
Namespace totals
Article	21114	55.33%
Talk	4484	11.75%
User	636	1.67%
User talk	5079	13.31%
Wikipedia	3411	8.94%
Wikipedia talk	722	1.89%
File	286	0.75%
File talk	1	0.00%
MediaWiki talk	7	0.02%
Template	979	2.57%
Template talk	396	1.04%
Help	2	0.01%
Category	308	0.81%
Category talk	4	0.01%
Portal	614	1.61%
Portal talk	110	0.29%
Graph
Month counts
2006/09	1	
2006/10	0	
2006/11	0	
2006/12	4	
2007/01	2	
2007/02	171	
2007/03	509	
2007/04	663	
2007/05	685	
2007/06	3	
2007/07	760	
2007/08	1578	
2007/09	349	
2007/10	687	
2007/11	1141	
2007/12	1247	
2008/01	2355	
2008/02	2412	
2008/03	2249	
2008/04	2072	
2008/05	478	
2008/06	1334	
2008/07	2160	
2008/08	764	
2008/09	796	
2008/10	1843	
2008/11	2490	
2008/12	2222	
2009/01	906	
2009/02	1728	
2009/03	1824	
2009/04	1779	
2009/05	2297	
2009/06	482	
2009/07	162	
Logs
Pages moved: 503
Pages patrolled: 5278
Files uploaded: 146
Top edited articles
Article

    * 629 - William_Gibson
    * 393 - Anarchism
    * 330 - Stormfront_(website)
    * 280 - Ayn_Rand
    * 242 - Jimmy_Wales
    * 218 - CrimethInc.
    * 199 - Rage_Against_the_Machine
    * 163 - Queens_of_the_Stone_Age
    * 150 - Jim_Jarmusch
    * 137 - Era_Vulgaris_(album)


Talk

    * 284 - Ayn_Rand
    * 237 - Stormfront_(website)
    * 163 - Anarchism
    * 137 - William_Gibson
    * 96 - Jimmy_Wales
    * 48 - Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
    * 46 - CrimethInc.
    * 39 - Queens_of_the_Stone_Age
    * 37 - Anarchy_in_Somalia
    * 36 - Jim_Jarmusch


User

    * 117 - Skomorokh/Arbeitsablauf
    * 49 - Skomorokh/iconstasis
    * 49 - SwitChar/Anarchlist
    * 44 - Skomorokh/Vicissitude
    * 42 - Skomorokh/monobook.js
    * 38 - Skomorokh/Awards
    * 35 - Skomorokh/Jardiniere
    * 17 - Skomorokh
    * 17 - Zazaban/Egoist_anarchism
    * 9 - Skomorokh/moot


User talk

    * 901 - Skomorokh
    * 55 - SwitChar/Anarchlist
    * 22 - Jimbo_Wales
    * 21 - Cast
    * 17 - Xeno
    * 16 - Chuck0
    * 14 - RepublicanJacobite
    * 14 - Iridescent
    * 12 - Jennavecia
    * 11 - Operation_Spooner


Wikipedia

    * 277 - WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism
    * 188 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
    * 117 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 105 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
    * 97 - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
    * 92 - Administrators'_noticeboard
    * 70 - WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism/Workstation
    * 63 - Help_desk
    * 49 - Anarchism_referencing_guidelines
    * 47 - Good_article_nominations


Wikipedia talk

    * 138 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 107 - WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism
    * 27 - Anarchism_referencing_guidelines
    * 23 - Article_Rescue_Squadron
    * 22 - WikiProject_Philosophy
    * 18 - Notability
    * 16 - Functionary
    * 14 - Deletion_process
    * 13 - Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcem...
    * 12 - Did_you_know


File

    * 7 - Neuromancer_Brazilian_cover.jpg
    * 6 - Agrippa-cover.jpg
    * 5 - Idoru_uk_cover.jpg
    * 4 - X5x11-promo.jpg
    * 4 - Gibson_sprawl.jpg
    * 4 - Fragments-fr.jpg
    * 4 - Hagakure.jpg
    * 4 - The_Ego_and_Its_Own_-_Tsuji_Jun_translation.jpg
    * 3 - A_Rebours_1984_Centenary_Edition.jpg
    * 3 - Wanderlust_cover.jpg


File talk

    * 1 - NonFreeImageRemoved.svg


MediaWiki talk

    * 3 - Spam-blacklist
    * 2 - Recentchangestext
    * 1 - Watchlist-details
    * 1 - Spam-whitelist


Template

    * 71 - Anarchism_sidebar
    * 66 - Gibsonian
    * 55 - Objectivism_and_Ayn_Rand_Cross_Talk
    * 27 - CrimethInc.
    * 23 - Ethics
    * 19 - Portal_anniversary
    * 19 - Ayn_Rand
    * 18 - Anarchism
    * 18 - Queens_of_the_Stone_Age
    * 17 - SEP


Template talk

    * 137 - Did_you_know
    * 25 - Anarchism_sidebar
    * 18 - Gibsonian
    * 11 - Forms_of_government
    * 11 - Philosophy
    * 11 - Maintained
    * 9 - ArbComOpenTasks
    * 9 - Article_issues
    * 8 - ArticleHistory
    * 7 - Failed


Help

    * 2 - Accessibility


Category

    * 4 - Anarchism_portal_selected_articles
    * 4 - CrimethInc.
    * 4 - William_Gibson
    * 4 - Anarcho-syndicalists
    * 3 - Anarcho-pacifists
    * 3 - Wikipedians_looking_for_help_from_administrators
    * 3 - Postanarchists
    * 3 - A-Class_Anarchism_articles
    * 3 - Anarchist_stubs
    * 3 - Anarchist_organizations_of_Russia


Category talk

    * 1 - Postanarchists
    * 1 - Anarchism
    * 1 - Goon_Moon_albums
    * 1 - Anarchism_portal


Portal

    * 35 - Anarchism
    * 26 - Anarchism/Maintenance_station
    * 22 - Anarchism/Selected_image
    * 20 - Anarchism/Did_you_know/Nominations
    * 20 - Anarchism/Selected_article
    * 16 - Anarchism/News
    * 13 - Anarchism/Selected_article/Layout
    * 13 - Anarchism/Did_you_know/3
    * 12 - Anarchism/Intro
    * 11 - Anarchism/Did_you_know


Portal talk

    * 58 - Anarchism
    * 44 - Anarchism/Selected_image/Archive_1
    * 2 - Anarchism/Selected_article
    * 2 - Literature
    * 1 - Existentialism
    * 1 - Anarchism/to_do
    * 1 - Philosophy_of_science/Selected_biography
    * 1 - Anarchism/Did_you_know/Nominations

Concerns about Objectivism

I have to go away on business again but I still have concerns about Skomorokh's apparent defence of objectivists. Comments invited. Peter Damian (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this comment, I will reply to the three objections surrounding the IP editor, this discussion, and some of the supporters of this RfA. To start with the charge of making basic philosophical errors in the Aristotle discussion, to read it again, I still don't see where I made any philosophical claims whatsoever. You seemed to be giving a first-hand analysis of the source material, which I objected to on the grounds that only reliably-sourced analysis could be used in the article. Even if you find the claims I made problematic, they were not in the domain of philosophy, but of Wikipedia policy and of reading into the secondary literature on the topic. You commented "It is not for me [Damian] to prove Aristotle did not say these things, but for you [Skomorokh] to find a reliable source that says he did"" – but this assumes I was defending a view about what Aristotle said, when in fact I took no position on this, nor what the article should say about it; my only relevant claims had to do with what the externally linked sources had to say. So I'm not sure I appreciate your concern here.

On the issue of the IP editor, it's all well and good to say in hindsight that they were disruptive and should have been banned on sight, but as the history shows, their behaviour underwent a radical change in the week after the topic ban discussion. Prior to this, the editor would make a series of edits introducing new sources or correcting unclear claims in the article without discussing; when another editor objected and reverted a change of theirs, they simply moved on. So, the outcome was the IP making a number of contributions, which were then vetted by the talkpage editors – and the fact that many of the IPs changes were retained indicates that the article's editors considered the IPs contributions to be beneficial. The IP subsequently started reverting against consensus and ranting in edit summaries and was blocked. Net outcome: some annoyed Wikipedians, damage reverted, and a better set of articles. As TallNapoleon mentions in his reply to you here, I have a lenient philosophy toward blocking and banning editors (and it's got nothing to do with Objectivists – you'll find in the neutral section similar criticism regarding tolerance of white nationalists, paedophiles and Holocaust deniers). You yourself have been indefinitely blocked more than once and written off as irredeemably problematic, but were given another chance and as a result are here at RfA doing research into candidates that no-one else is prepared to do. Net outcome: some annoyed Wikipedians, unconvincing opposes outweighed, and a fuller vetting of administrator candidates. If an editor can contribute positively to an area of Wikipedia, with their "negative" contributions mitigated and the only damage done is to temporarily irritate some editors, I am in favour of allowing them to continue to contribute.

Finally, on the support of Karbinski and Ethan, I don't think it's any more "telling" than the support of the Russians, inclusionists or audited-content brigade. I am also humbled by the support of Snowded, TallNapoleon or J.Readings, who I am sure would not have felt comfortable supporting a crypto-Objectivist ideologue. I hope this addresses some of your concerns. Regards, Skomorokh 09:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I still think the one about Aristotle was odd, it being one of those cases where the claim in the article was obviously wrong, but it is probably not relevant here - perhaps we can discuss that some other time. Best Peter Damian (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the neutral section

That sums up perfectly my problems about this case. Being less tolerant about open advocates of extreme views is something I have campaigned for on Wikipedia for many years (and have indeed been blocked and banned for). S is arguing for tolerance of those whose presence is so disruptive to the activities of genuinely neutral editors that it will drive them away and destroy the project. (Interesting consequence, that - perhaps I should switch back to support). Peter Damian (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have tried so hard to find an oppose rationale for any vote with which you have been involved. Your credibility is shot considering you find it appropriate to mention the destruction of Wikipedia. You actually outlined a plan that entailed vandalism of articles and demoralization of the editors here:

“

1. Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up.

2. Demoralise the content contributors so they leave. To an extent this is already happening. The problem here however is that most of the 'community' would welcome them leaving. Then they could concentrate on their job of fighting vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia eternally in the state it was in 2005.
3. Attack the source of funds. This would be very effective but difficult. Requirement: a few articles in respectable journals that showed properly how Wikipedia was distorting human knowledge. (To make up for that ridiculous and skewed 'Nature' article). Properly write up the stuff about pedophiles, zoophiles, pornographers, Objectivists. Publicise this widely. Talk with journalists.
4. Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
5. Form an alliance with the natural enemies of Wikipedia such as Britannica.
6. Get sponsorship from wealthy person or corporation who would pay editors to contribute.

”

Switch your vote to whatever side you wish, it holds no weight. You mention your 'instincts,' when in reality your instincts are your own fallacy. Your time here has expired. Law_{type! snype?} 09:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this personal attack. You should not quote something that was obviously intended as a joke, you should not say that my carefully reasoned arguments 'hold no weight' unless you give a rationale, you should not say my 'credibility is shot' unless you give a rationale or a logical explanation of why. This seems like an attempt to bully the opposers. Peter Damian (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You oppose everything. here you will see that I'm not bullying you. I have no vested interest in this RfA. Law_{type! snype?} 11:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]