Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/oren0
Edit count for oren0
[edit]User:oren0
run at Sat Jun 21 23:35:15 2008 GMT
Category: 17
Image: 1
Mainspace 1830
Talk: 791
Template talk: 10
Template: 9
User talk: 253
User: 79
Wikipedia talk: 9
Wikipedia: 185
avg edits per page 2.89
earliest 20:51, 6 September 2006
number of unique pages 1102
total 3184
2006/9 14
2006/10 13
2006/11 14
2006/12 21
2007/1 44
2007/2 183
2007/3 119
2007/4 191
2007/5 375
2007/6 234
2007/7 5
2007/8 35
2007/9 71
2007/10 115
2007/11 170
2007/12 188
2008/1 269
2008/2 258
2008/3 271
2008/4 210
2008/5 222
2008/6 162
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
138 [2]List of songs in Rock Band
65 [3]Rock Band (video game)
61
[4]List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming
51 [5]An Inconvenient Truth
37 [6]Louisville Cardinals men's basketball
36 [7]Global warming controversy
30 [8]List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
21 [9]Political positions of John McCain
21 [10]Big East Conference
21 [11]The Great Global Warming Swindle
17 [12]List of minor characters of Scrubs
15 [13]Scrabble
15 [14]Louisville Cardinals football
15 [15]Brian Brohm
14 [16]Washington University in St. Louis
Talk:
142
[17]List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming
108 [18]List of songs in Rock Band
102 [19]An Inconvenient Truth
46 [20]Global warming
38 [21]Scientific opinion on climate change
33 [22]The Great Global Warming Swindle
30 [23]Global warming controversy
24 [24]Rock Band (video game)
13 [25]Vincent R. Gray
11 [26]Attribution of recent climate change
10 [27]List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
9 [28]Martian global warming
8 [29]Official Tournament and Club Word List
8 [30]Political positions of John McCain
7 [31]Chris de Freitas
Category:
4 [32]Dance Dance Revolution soundtracks
4 [33]Guitar Hero soundtracks
3 [34]Music video game soundtracks
3 [35]Quantum Leap characters
Template:
6 [36]Global warming
Template talk:
9 [37]Global warming
User:
33 [38]Oren0
16 [39]Oren0/GWSkepticList
10 [40]Oren0/monobook.js
8 [41]Oren0/RockBandSongs
3 [42]TRTX/RB
2 [43]Oren0/SupportIsrael
2 [44]Ed Poor/Richard Courtney (climate)
2 [45]Oren0/GWSkeptic
User talk:
32 [46]Oren0
5 [47]Raul654
4 [48]Chengas8er3
3 [49]Alison
3 [50]Zeeboid
3 [51]80.166.179.124
2 [52]74.130.196.203
2 [53]68.38.19.220
2 [54]Lmbstl
2 [55]84.180.240.33
2 [56]71.130.177.223
2 [57]Wikifried
2 [58]HauntingYourKids
2 [59]24.62.105.125
2 [60]Jmlk17
Wikipedia:
16 [61]User categories for discussion
14 [62]Six degrees of Wikipedia
9 [63]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
9 [64]Requested moves
8 [65]Deletion review/Log/2007 April 8
7 [66]Articles for deletion/Exposed: The Climate of Fear
7 [67]WikiProject College Basketball
6 [68]Articles for deletion/Vincent Gray (consultant)
6
[69]Articles for deletion/Nongovernmental International Panel on Climat
e Change
4 [70]Requests for page protection
4 [71]Articles for deletion/Washington University Student Union
4 [72]WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis/articles
3 [73]WikiProject Council/Proposals
3 [74]Third opinion
3 [75]Articles for deletion/Beatles Concert Puzzle
Wikipedia talk:
3 [76]Manual of Style
2 [77]Six degrees of Wikipedia
2 [78]WikiProject College Basketball
If there were any problems, please [79]email Interiot or post at
[80]User talk:Interiot.
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 23:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC).
My oppose
[edit]Taking this to the talk page to avoid disrupting the main page (though it may be a bit late for that).
First of all, the canvassing issue. Well, there's nowt I can do about that. But I've had a rethink about whether it is canvassing, and I now doubt it. Raul didn't vote, so I think we can assume he isn't strongly opposed to Oren0's adminship, at least yet; and the *questions* added to my talk page can be taken at face value, as questions. Pedro shouts make up your own mind which doesn't exactly engender respect: apparently I'm in thrall to Rauls least comment. This is deeply insulting and childish on Pedros part. Leave it out, guv. I have made up my own mind.
Meanwhile, Oren0 said: Global warming is only one facet of things I edit. WP:CANVAS forbids me from giving notice at, say Talk:Rock Band (video game), where I know several editors who would support me but haven't found this RfA. Why should William be allowed to solicit potential votes against me in only one area in which I edit? to which I answer: why do you think I'm soliciting against you? I left a strictly neutral note about your RFA on t:GW. If you think that the majority of editors there would be against you, that may well be a question for you. You've made action at GW a major plank of your adminship, which is why notification there makes sense, whereas over in the rock bands less relevant.
More importantly, Oren0 has totally failed to address the substance of my oppose: which is that the first major plank of his bid for adminship is nonsense. I'd like to see him do so. Who knows, if he can, I might change my mind William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- But William, why is his "major plank" nonsense? You seem to be arguing that we have sufficent admins in a given are of editing. Community consensus for a long time has been that "we don't need more admins" is not a good reason to oppose. If orenO had stated that he wanted to work at, say, WP:AIV would you oppose? That board is rarely if ever backlogged, yet it seems to me to have more people doesn't hinder. I apologise if you feel me calling out your oppose is childish. But you cannot ask the candidate to address "the substance of your oppose" when your oppose has no substance - i.e. no diffs, no supporting information and no value. Perhaps I'm missing the point of your oppose - is there something to it other than "we don't need more admins at Global Warming articles"? I think not. Pedro : Chat 07:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know how many admins watch the global warming pages. Is 20 minutes between me reverting the first obvious sock edit and the user being blocked too long [1] [2]? Who knows. I'm not entirely sure why it's relevant anyway. The question isn't "do we need this user as an admin?" but "is this user trustable with the tools?" If you think I'm not, I'd like to hear why. I'm not sure what I can say to "there are enough admins" other than "I disagree." As for why you're soliciting against me, I just think that some pro-GW editors wouldn't want an admin with an opposing view. Without assuming bad faith, it's not a stretch that an editor who opposes me taking action to draw more similar editors is doing so to draw more Opposes. Oren0 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- You did place the whole GW thing on the table. WMC does have a relatively fair point. Your request somehow reads like: "Alright, I dont have that much experience in admin topics, but we need some help in GW." So, it is not out of this world to oppose based on a statement you made that was uttered to get support. Note that this comes from a supporter of yours. I support you because the tools are no big deal and despite the fact that you have little experience, I think you will learn quick and find a place to be very helpful. I also think that you have made good contributions and I admire your ability to remain objective; you are the only self-described skeptic editor who frequents GW and has reverted and opposed the addition of fringe material. So, as a supporter, I will give you some advice. Dont say that "some editors" are afraid of having an admin who is a skeptic. First, it undermines wikipedia policy. Having the tools will give you no powers to do something for an article that you cant already do. It only makes the process faster (before you had to ask, now you can do it on your own, assuming what you are doing is not controversial.) And, on a historical note, there was a wikipedia bureaucrat who was a self-described gw skeptic. No one was afraid to engage him, or to enforce policy as we do these days. So dont use that argument, it is demonstrably false. Brusegadi (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I very much agree with Brusegadi on a number of these points, particularly Having the tools will give you no powers to do something to an article that you cant already do. A prompt and useful reminder that admin tools have no direct benefit to article work - well said. I also agree that "... some pro-GW editors wouldn't want an admin with an opposing view" is not a helpful view point and does assume some bad faith, or at the least is phrased poorly and seems to assume bad faith. The issue here is in respect of WMC's oppose. It would seem, on balance, that orenO believes we need more people with +sysop at these articles. WMC believes that we have enough already. This would seem to be irreconcilable, as it would be impossible to quantify how many admins is "enough" or "not enough". Pedro : Chat 08:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- This also begs the question, of course, of whether there is a downside at all to having "too many" responsible admins? What is the downside here in light of WMC's oppose? I am aware of none. So if the question is even open to debate at all why would you not err on the side of "too many" as opposed to "too few"? --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I very much agree with Brusegadi on a number of these points, particularly Having the tools will give you no powers to do something to an article that you cant already do. A prompt and useful reminder that admin tools have no direct benefit to article work - well said. I also agree that "... some pro-GW editors wouldn't want an admin with an opposing view" is not a helpful view point and does assume some bad faith, or at the least is phrased poorly and seems to assume bad faith. The issue here is in respect of WMC's oppose. It would seem, on balance, that orenO believes we need more people with +sysop at these articles. WMC believes that we have enough already. This would seem to be irreconcilable, as it would be impossible to quantify how many admins is "enough" or "not enough". Pedro : Chat 08:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- You did place the whole GW thing on the table. WMC does have a relatively fair point. Your request somehow reads like: "Alright, I dont have that much experience in admin topics, but we need some help in GW." So, it is not out of this world to oppose based on a statement you made that was uttered to get support. Note that this comes from a supporter of yours. I support you because the tools are no big deal and despite the fact that you have little experience, I think you will learn quick and find a place to be very helpful. I also think that you have made good contributions and I admire your ability to remain objective; you are the only self-described skeptic editor who frequents GW and has reverted and opposed the addition of fringe material. So, as a supporter, I will give you some advice. Dont say that "some editors" are afraid of having an admin who is a skeptic. First, it undermines wikipedia policy. Having the tools will give you no powers to do something for an article that you cant already do. It only makes the process faster (before you had to ask, now you can do it on your own, assuming what you are doing is not controversial.) And, on a historical note, there was a wikipedia bureaucrat who was a self-described gw skeptic. No one was afraid to engage him, or to enforce policy as we do these days. So dont use that argument, it is demonstrably false. Brusegadi (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know how many admins watch the global warming pages. Is 20 minutes between me reverting the first obvious sock edit and the user being blocked too long [1] [2]? Who knows. I'm not entirely sure why it's relevant anyway. The question isn't "do we need this user as an admin?" but "is this user trustable with the tools?" If you think I'm not, I'd like to hear why. I'm not sure what I can say to "there are enough admins" other than "I disagree." As for why you're soliciting against me, I just think that some pro-GW editors wouldn't want an admin with an opposing view. Without assuming bad faith, it's not a stretch that an editor who opposes me taking action to draw more similar editors is doing so to draw more Opposes. Oren0 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like Pedro to butt out here and let Oren0 answer for himself. Its Oren0's answers & judgement I'm interested in, not Pedro's. Let me remind you that I objected to One major reason I'm applying for this is that the recent unprotection of several global warming pages and the subsequent retirement from the issue of a checkuser admin has left a void which needs to be filled by more admins to protect from sockpuppetry and vandalism as nonsense. If O had said he wanted to work at AIV, I wouldn't be objecting. The assertion he did make is wrong, and casts his judgement into question. Rather than accepting that its wrong, O now appears to be making bizarre defences (I'm not entirely sure why it's relevant anyway - err, its relevant because you made it your major plank. If you think its not relevant, please strike out that bit of your RFA and I'll reconsider). You say The question isn't "do we need this user as an admin?" but "is this user trustable with the tools?" which is a fair point. The counter-question is: if your judgement is faulty, and over this issue it clearly is; and if you're not prepared to admit being wrong; can I trust you? Will you show enough maturity to admit being wrnog over more important issues, instead of trying to change the subject? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that beyond a certain point there's not much to say here. It seems your opinion that "we need more admins on GW" is demonstrably false, though to me that's clearly an opinion. You didn't answer my point above: is 20 minutes a reasonable amount of time for a suspected sock to be blocked? If I was an admin it would've been faster. I'd admit I was wrong if I thought I was, but I do believe that these pages and the project as a whole needs more admins and you disagreeing repeatedly with no evidence (I don't have any idea how many admins frequent those pages, do you?) isn't convincing to me. Oren0 (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you think socks *need* to be blocked within 20 mins then your judgement is even worse than I thought. And unless you're promising to stay awake 24h a day then your assertion that such socks will be blocked within 20 mins is utterly absurd. These pages don't *need* more admins; they have plenty. The project as a whole is another matter; like I say; if you're prepared to admit youre wrong and strike your plank re admins on GW then I'll reconsider. But it looks like you've backed yourself into a corner on this and won't admit error, which as I said before is not promising William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think socks need to be blocked within 20 minutes. But that sock would've been blocked faster if I had been an admin. What I'm saying is that relative slowness indicates that more admins would be helpful. I never said that GW was my only reason for being an admin either, it was just one of them. I still believe that the topic could be watched by more admins, but it seems at this point that we've reached an impasse in that regard and there's not much more to say on the matter. Oren0 (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is little to say, so I wonder why you're saying it. But "relative slowness" is just more nonsense. 20 mins is not slow William M. Connolley (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it really your contention that OrenO's fitness to be an admin somehow rests on his ability to arrive at the same judgement as yourself on a matter as trivial and ill defined as "how many administrators is enough?" Are all administrators in lock step agreement on such matters? --GoRight (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misrepresent the question, and its importance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I am open to that being a possibility, although it was never my intent. So, please clarify for us how I am misrepresenting things by explaining why are you placing so much importance on this particular question and on OrenO's need to "get the right answer" in order to gain your support? --GoRight (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Errrm, well, O said: One major reason I'm applying... Doesn't that suggest that this is important? Or, if you prefer to belive that its not important, thats O's judgement on the issue is wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I am open to that being a possibility, although it was never my intent. So, please clarify for us how I am misrepresenting things by explaining why are you placing so much importance on this particular question and on OrenO's need to "get the right answer" in order to gain your support? --GoRight (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you misrepresent the question, and its importance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it really your contention that OrenO's fitness to be an admin somehow rests on his ability to arrive at the same judgement as yourself on a matter as trivial and ill defined as "how many administrators is enough?" Are all administrators in lock step agreement on such matters? --GoRight (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is little to say, so I wonder why you're saying it. But "relative slowness" is just more nonsense. 20 mins is not slow William M. Connolley (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think socks need to be blocked within 20 minutes. But that sock would've been blocked faster if I had been an admin. What I'm saying is that relative slowness indicates that more admins would be helpful. I never said that GW was my only reason for being an admin either, it was just one of them. I still believe that the topic could be watched by more admins, but it seems at this point that we've reached an impasse in that regard and there's not much more to say on the matter. Oren0 (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you think socks *need* to be blocked within 20 mins then your judgement is even worse than I thought. And unless you're promising to stay awake 24h a day then your assertion that such socks will be blocked within 20 mins is utterly absurd. These pages don't *need* more admins; they have plenty. The project as a whole is another matter; like I say; if you're prepared to admit youre wrong and strike your plank re admins on GW then I'll reconsider. But it looks like you've backed yourself into a corner on this and won't admit error, which as I said before is not promising William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Today is proof
[edit]If you still think we don't need more admins at GW or I couldn't do useful work as an admin there, have a look at Special:Contributions/Threop and my recent contribs. I just spent 20 minutes reverting several edits on several GW-related pages by an obvious Scibaby sock before someone noticed and blocked him. I would've been able to block him much earlier, saving several reversions for myself and others and saving a posting at WP:SSP. Oren0 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- To the contrary. Today is proof that we don't *need* more admins; the latest sock edits barely stood for a few minutes. I'm *not* saying that more admins can't do useful work, so please don't continually misinterpret me. But your contention that we *need* more admins is obviously wrong, and twisting the evidence to try to prove otherwise is unedifying William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- If we had 100 editors actively watching these pages and only one admin, the edits wouldn't stand for long either. But they'd likely be reverted by non-admins that couldn't block the sock, causing more headaches for everyone and wasting editors' time. Just because I quickly found this sock and started stalking his contribs doesn't mean there were enough admins to block him quickly. I had to waste 20 minutes chasing this guy when I could have blocked him in two if I was an admin. Today is a perfect example of the kind of situation where I believe my adminship would benefit the GW pages. Oren0 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Notice at Talk:Rock Band (video game)
[edit]I'd like to point people towards this and this. I did not ask this user to canvas on my behalf and it was not my intent that someone would place this notice when I made the example in the RfA. I bow to the guidance of others here as to what, if anything, should be done about this notice. Oren0 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)