Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Somno
User:Somno run at Sat Jan 31 13:17:09 2009 GMT
Category: 4
Mainspace 3132
Portal talk: 4
Portal: 122
Talk: 249
Template talk: 11
Template: 9
User talk: 1533
User: 127
Wikipedia talk: 87
Wikipedia: 415
avg edits per page 1.84
earliest 13:44, 5 October 2007
number of unique pages 3097
total 5693
2007/10 57
2007/11 38
2007/12 357
2008/1 714
2008/2 481
2008/3 485
2008/4 364
2008/5 265
2008/6 238
2008/7 399
2008/8 347
2008/9 547
2008/10 293
2008/11 262
2008/12 450
2009/1 396
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
56
44 Baldwinsville, New York
30 Omarion
29 Sindy
25 Fonty's Pool
24 Manjimup, Western Australia
23 Brian Scalabrine
22 Wrong Turn 2
18 Glenbard East High School
17 Rachel Zoe
17 Ben Cousins
16 List of science fiction conventions
15 Prairie Ridge High School
15 Russell Dumas
15 2008 Western Australian gas crisis
Talk:
10 Geelong Football Club
10 Geelong Football Club/HistoryDraft
8 Maria Houkli
8 List of science fiction conventions
8 River Oaks, Houston
8 Sindy
7 Savannah College of Art and Design
7 The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
6 Social work
5 Fonty's Pool
5 Geelong, Victoria
4 Pedigree Dolls & Toys
4 Gulfton, Houston
4 Don Mills Middle School
4 Three Sisters
Portal:
10 Western Australia/Western Australia news/Archive
10 Western Australia/Western Australia news
8 Western Australia/Did you know
8 Western Australia/Nominate/Did you know
8 Western Australia
8 Western Australia/Selected article
7 Western Australia/Featured content
7 Western Australia/Did you know/Archive
5 Western Australia/Selected article/April 2008
4 Western Australia/Western Australia topics
3 Western Australia/Selected article/December 2007
3 Western Australia/box-header
3 Western Australia/Selected article/January 2008
3 Western Australia/Selected article/March 2008
2 Western Australia/Intro/4
Portal talk:
3 Western Australia
Template:
2 Infobox WikiProject
2 City of Bankstown topics
Template talk:
7 Did you know
2 Update after
2 GA nominee
User:
36 Somno
25 Somno/Sandbox
14 Somno/Contributions
7 Somno/monobook.js
6 Somno/Menu
4 Somno/DYK
4 Somno/Bookmarks
3 UBX/Fremantle Dockers
2 Blehfu
2 UBX/Port Adelaide Power
2 Somno/RfA review Recommend Phase
User talk:
212 Somno
10 Dancerdoll
9 68.236.36.160
8 Giggy
6 A895
6 Missriteen
5 Tiptoety
5 76Datsun280z
5 ManChowda
5 72.90.85.46
5 Entect
5 204.111.40.10
5 Andygradel
4 Adam.J.W.C.
4 Balloonman
Wikipedia:
37 Suspected copyright violations
30 Good article nominations
29 Administrator intervention against vandalism
21 Australian Wikipedians' notice board
17 Requests for page protection
11 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
9 Usernames for administrator attention
8 Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 28
8 WikiProject Western Australia
6 Requested moves
5 Articles for deletion/Womensforum
5 Good articles
4 WikiProject Australian historic places
4 Articles for deletion/Brewno
4 Articles for deletion/Innovation management
Wikipedia talk:
54 WikiProject Western Australia
9 Good article nominations
6 Criteria for speedy deletion
4 WikiProject Western Australia/0.7 articles
4 WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7
3 Requests for adminship
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
From Stifle's oppose
[edit]- Moved here to avoid cluttering the RfA. Regards SoWhy 11:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? Look at the answers to the questions, hell, ask more if you like. This user seems very well endowed with policy knowledge. Assuming that the candidate "likely" lacks policy knowledge isn't good enough IMHO, why not try and investigate to find out for yourself? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why do people insist on repeatedly questioning the same rationales by the same users? Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I lack the wisdom to appreciate Wisdom's comment, since it is made in a near vacuum, I'm probably not alone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's simply the latest incarnation of editcountitus. Stifle opposes anone who has less than 500 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, (Somno has 415.) Actually editing the encyclopedia is much more important than spamming "Delete per nom" on AFD, though Stifle's flawed logic favors the latter. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, I still don't find it helpful to continuously challenge this oppose. He's been making it for quite some time. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just because he's made it loads of times doesn't mean I accept his point of view, nor does it mean that I don't want to ridicule it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to ridicule somebody's oppose, it might be better to take it to their talk page. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why? This is an RfA-related matter, which involves the entire community. Talk pages (except this one which is more of a public noticeboard) are for more private matters that don't involve the community quite so much. Our disagreement on this matter, for example, might be better suited to our talk pages. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ignore it. He always does the usual robot reasoning. There are always the usual robot admins who oppose people with the same robot-reasoning. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty out of line. Please see WP:NPA. Criteria for adminship differs among participants at RfA. Just because someone has a different set of criteria than yours doesn't make their reasoning "robotic" or their vote any less worthwhile. Please reconsider your comments.Protonk (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the oppose seems to be made on the basis of an algorithm I am unsure how describing the reasoning as "robotic" is anything other than accurate. Mechanical reasoning is often described as "robotic". It is entirely appropriate to criticise the basis for others opinions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- We have just as much knowledge that the oppose was based on an algorithm as we do that it was based on a moment of religious inspiration. We don't know. It could be heuristic. It could be rigid. We should assume good faith. And I think that it is a tad bit disingenuous to characterize yellow monkey's comments as "comment on reasoning" when the very next sentence is "There are always the usual robot admins who oppose people with the same robot-reasoning." We all know people with mechanical RfA criteria, that doesn't give anyone license to make comments like that. Protonk (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the algorithm is specifically described on Stifle's userpage. Giggy (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Still doesn't justify the invective. Protonk (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say it justifies anything, I was just pointing out the inaccuracy of the first two sentences of your previous post, for future reference. Giggy (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Still doesn't justify the invective. Protonk (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the algorithm is specifically described on Stifle's userpage. Giggy (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- We have just as much knowledge that the oppose was based on an algorithm as we do that it was based on a moment of religious inspiration. We don't know. It could be heuristic. It could be rigid. We should assume good faith. And I think that it is a tad bit disingenuous to characterize yellow monkey's comments as "comment on reasoning" when the very next sentence is "There are always the usual robot admins who oppose people with the same robot-reasoning." We all know people with mechanical RfA criteria, that doesn't give anyone license to make comments like that. Protonk (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the oppose seems to be made on the basis of an algorithm I am unsure how describing the reasoning as "robotic" is anything other than accurate. Mechanical reasoning is often described as "robotic". It is entirely appropriate to criticise the basis for others opinions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty out of line. Please see WP:NPA. Criteria for adminship differs among participants at RfA. Just because someone has a different set of criteria than yours doesn't make their reasoning "robotic" or their vote any less worthwhile. Please reconsider your comments.Protonk (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ignore it. He always does the usual robot reasoning. There are always the usual robot admins who oppose people with the same robot-reasoning. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why? This is an RfA-related matter, which involves the entire community. Talk pages (except this one which is more of a public noticeboard) are for more private matters that don't involve the community quite so much. Our disagreement on this matter, for example, might be better suited to our talk pages. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to ridicule somebody's oppose, it might be better to take it to their talk page. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just because he's made it loads of times doesn't mean I accept his point of view, nor does it mean that I don't want to ridicule it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, I still don't find it helpful to continuously challenge this oppose. He's been making it for quite some time. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's simply the latest incarnation of editcountitus. Stifle opposes anone who has less than 500 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, (Somno has 415.) Actually editing the encyclopedia is much more important than spamming "Delete per nom" on AFD, though Stifle's flawed logic favors the latter. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I lack the wisdom to appreciate Wisdom's comment, since it is made in a near vacuum, I'm probably not alone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why do people insist on repeatedly questioning the same rationales by the same users? Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- ←I accept the criticism; I feel that users who don't have a minimal level of contributions in Wikipedia namespace should get them before getting the bit. That opinion has changed in the past, and may change in the future, but I'm happy with it for now. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- pure numbers arent enough, with the tools we have available a person can get a lot of WP space edits and still not understand the processes. Gnangarra 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was aware of Stifle's 500 WP namespace requirement before running for adminship, so his/her oppose was somewhat expected. :) I think my contribs across all namespaces show that I have the required level of policy knowledge, and I wasn't willing to spend time making edits that I wouldn't otherwise make in WP namespace just to reach an arbitrary figure. I read policies and talk pages much more than I contribute to them, so I've definitely seen Stifle's name around more than s/he's seen mine, so I've no problem with the oppose. Somno (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a minimum, Gnangarra. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- pure numbers arent enough, with the tools we have available a person can get a lot of WP space edits and still not understand the processes. Gnangarra 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you kidding? Look at the answers to the questions, hell, ask more if you like. This user seems very well endowed with policy knowledge. Assuming that the candidate "likely" lacks policy knowledge isn't good enough IMHO, why not try and investigate to find out for yourself? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)