Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
m Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31) Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata rfa" style="background-color: #f5fff5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a '''successful''' [[wikipedia:requests for adminship|request for adminship]]. <strong style="color:red">Please do not modify it</strong>.[[Category:Successful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]''
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh|Skomorokh]]===
Line 26:
;Question from [[user:Will Beback]]
:'''2.''' In the "Neutral" section below some editors are rasiing issues concerning your editing and interactions surrounding [[Stormfront (website)]]. You are by far the largest contributor to the article and its talk page. There was once an effort by Stormfront editors to "take over" Wikipedia and the editors there once posted a listing of Jewish Wikipedia editors to target, so there is an unusual relationship between the two projects. Could you please describe your interest in this topic and what you see as its particular challenges? Could you also explain your reasoning behind [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=260912772&diff=prev this edit], which appears to be unsourced original research? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
::'''A:''' Cheers for the question, Will. Starting from the top, I was unaware of the attempted takeover or targeting of Jewish editors issues. I knew the website was controversial, which was my sole reason for choosing to try to take it to GA after being amazed that [[User:Giggy|Giggy]] dragged the [[4chan]] article kicking and screaming to FA. I don't have any real interest in the topic area in general; American politics bore me to tears. I have nothing against white people, and I'm sure if instead of editing Wikipedia I had friends, several of them would be white etc. As for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=260912772&diff=prev this edit], it is neither unsourced nor original research, but, as it says, a summary of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&oldid=260912772#Character Character] section of the article; I follow the convention of not cluttering lead sections with redundant citations. I've kept this brief so feel free to follow up. Regards, [[user:Skomorokh|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"><font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh </font></span>]] 19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 61:
::'''A''' Ciao Peter, thanks for the questions. As a skeptic, non-cognitivist and nominalist I have little in common with Objectivists philosophically, nor do I participate in Objectivist websites (other than to observe the Wikipedia-related fallout from the Valliant controversy). You are correct in saying that I defended the right of the IP in question to edit [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive39#Ayn_Rand|here]], (though I don't believe ArbCom ever ruled on the issue). The situation was disruptive, yes, but the editor exhibited a greater familiarity with the topics and the literature than any others, and the article was improving because of it. Once they started edit-warring against consensus and ranting in edit summaries, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.199.110.160&diff=283250657&oldid=282892120 warned them] and subsequently [[Template:Objectivism_and_Ayn_Rand_Cross_Talk/Archive_1#Proposed_removal_of_references_to_James_Valliant_and_The_Passion_of_Ayn_Rand.27s_Critics|proposed]] the wholesale removal of ''PARC'' as a reference. I did not consider the question of whether or not Rand ought to be described as a philosopher an important one, as I don't attach a lot of weight to that term. A note of caution: I don't intend on contributing significantly to philosophy articles—as I'm sure you're aware it's a topic area very poorly covered by the encyclopaedia and difficult to work on collaboratively. Please feel free to follow-up if I have misrepresented the past in my answer or if there's anything else you are wondering about. Regards, [[user:Skomorokh|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"><font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh </font></span>]] 13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
::: Thank you, that clears the mystery up. Although I can't say I agree with you that the article was improving in the slightest, having carefully studied the edits in question. But another question: do you have any ideas about improving the environment for editors with proper philosophical training? As you must be aware, these mostly work together in a collaborative way (I work well with KD, for example, even though he was trained in the 'continental' variety). The problems are those without training who imagine that training is not needed, and whose tendentiousness is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject. Do you agree? If so, how would you improve the lot of those working in this area? [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Sorry for not replying to this sooner; I have been thinking about it and do intend to offer some thoughts later. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
;Additional optional questions from [[User:Karbinski|Karbinski]]
:'''10.''' If you came accross an article discussion where user Peter Damian was participating, would you Assume Good Faith for user Peter Damian? If so, why?
::'''A:''' The doctrine of "assume good faith" is a response to a lack of information about your fellow editor's intentions. In cases where those intentions are known – and there are more than one of those where Peter Damian is concerned – nothing need be assumed. Where doubt ''does'' exist, it's almost always an optimum strategy to assume good faith and respond politely to the editor – if they are acting in good faith, all goes well; if they are being petulant/histronic/throwing tantrums, good faith will go towards stabilising the situation and helping the editor regain their cool; if the editor is contributing in bad faith, getting excited about it and conducting a witchhunt guarantees that you will have been [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_170#Proposed_topic-ban_of_Dougstech_from_.21voting_or_commenting_in_RfA|successfully trolled]]. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
;Additional optional questions from [[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]]
:'''11.''' Could you explain why you choose not have a link to your talk page in your signature? As, it makes communication a slight hassle, would you be open to changing your signature so that some part of it links direct to your talk page?
::'''A:''' Sure, no problem. The reasons I linked only to my username were [[aesthetic minimalism]] and the ease of navigation from user to user talk. Cheers, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
;Additional question from [[user:Peter Damian]]
:'''11.''' Why do you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Avruch&diff=220406416&oldid=220401052 refer] to a pedophile as an 'ephebophile'? Do you think that people who label themselves in this way belong on Wikipedia? It is well known that they are in denial about their sexuality and invent such terms to minimise the reality of it. Thus 'boy lover', 'girl lover' and of course 'ephebophile'. As the father of children who also use Wikipedia, I am very uncomfortable that you support the presence of such undesirable people here. This is also the post where you talk about the ''epistemological stance'' on the Holocaust. The expression ''epistemological stance'' seems rather like 'ephebophile' here. It seems like an attempt to use language to disguise and gloss over the full reality and horror of the case.
::Why I chose to phrase a comment made in passing over a year ago is not, evidently, something considered important enough to remember. I have offered a perspective on prejudicially restricting editors below. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
;Question from Tony1
:'''12.''' Like many people, you hold strong opinions about certain matters. Can you give us an example—hypothetical or real—that might require / would require you to think carefully about how to sequester those opinions from your duty to be NPOV as an admin?
::'''A:''' Thanks for the question, Tony. Honestly, I can't remember any occasion when my "real life" beliefs (i.e. moral, political, cultural) caused me to get agitated or emotionally invested in an on-wiki situation, and I rarely get into personal dispute. The times when I have gotten heated or when my neutrality has been questioned have almost always been when metapedian issues ([[meta:exclusionism]], [[meta:immediatism]], and so on) were front and centre. For example, I knew that had I gotten as involved as I had wished in the recent discussion concerning [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing|user page indexing]], about which I have quite strong opinions, I might have ended up losing my cool. I feel similarly strongly about safeguarding the ability of anonymous and unregistered editors to contribute, the scope of flagged revisions, administrator accountability and other issues especially pertaining to the radical openness and power dynamics of the project. As to how this would effect my actions as an administrator, I would not act in that capacity where my position is significantly out of sync with a plurality of those involved (i.e. [[ [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive39#Ayn_Rand|here]]), or in situations to which the assistance of competent outside administrators could be drawn without too much difficulty (for example certain issues surrounding the [[Jimmy Wales]] article over which I have had disagreements). As maligned as it is, [[WP:AIN]] is a forum at which attention can be drawn and – ultimately, though rarely without [[FUD|noise]] – assistance and good judgement received from non-invested experienced administrators. I'm not sure if I answered your question in the manner you intended, so if there's anything else please feel free to follow up. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
;Additional optional questions from [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]]
Line 101:
*Congrats on [[WP:100]]! –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
*To Groomtech, Carlos, Thaddeus, Fastily, I have consciously chosen not to answer your questions on principle. I believe that questions that (a) don't arise from a the candidate's contributions (b) don't otherwise have particular relevance to the candidate in question lower the standard of discussion and do not encourage editors to research the candidate fully. I mean no disrespect personally, my choice is simply an effort to influence RfA culture and raise the standards of discourse. Mahalo, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
* I'm not really getting what Q13 has to do with adminship. '''<font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedour[[WP:NODRAMA|<font style="color:#99CC99;">drama</font>]]</font>[[User talk:Garden|<font style="color:#000099;">inthegarden</font>]]''' 10:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 126:
#'''Support''' - as per Ched Davis above, I can't recall seeing Skomorokh involved in anything problematic in any sphere. Will make a solid admin. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I'm confident this editor will make a good administrator. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the clueful contributor.—[[User:S Marshall|<
#'''Support''' I see no indication Skomorokh would misuse the tools. For some reason I thought he was an admin already. [[User:Timmeh|<span style="color:darkred;font:bold 10pt kristen itc">Tim</span>]][[User talk:Timmeh|<span style="color:black;font:bold 10pt kristen itc">meh</span>]] 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#Good work around UAA, very clueful. '''[[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">ceran</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#2F4F4F" face="Century">''thor''</font>]] 16:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' No research necessary - I've seen him around a lot, and he's been a valued editor everywhere, even when I didn't agree with him. <strong>[[User:RayAYang|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Ray</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:RayAYang|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 17:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - honestly, I thought you were one already. I've seen plenty of good work from you and nothing that overtly concerns me (see also my comments by Caspian_blue's neutral !vote). I was also particularly impressed with your self-nom statement - it combines a very cogent justification for why you want admin tools with a very amusing style. Overall I've been consistently impressed and have no real concerns that you'd misuse admin tools. Good luck. ~ [[User:Mazca|<
#'''Strong support''' - I wonder what took him so long! He probably doesn't remember interacting with me, but we did once, and it left me the impression that he would be a good admin. [[User:Master&Expert|'''<span style="color:Blue">Master&</span>'''<span style="color:#00FFFF">Expert</span>]] ([[User talk:Master&Expert|<span style="color:purple">Talk</span>]]) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Enthusiastic support, had a good impression from when seen you around (cliche but had thought you must already be an admin). Know of nothing to make me think you will misuse the tools. (Oh and nice nomination) [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Source of many valued contributions. Intelligent and clueful editor. Truly deserving of the tools, he earned it. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<
# As clichéd as it is, I thought that you were already an admin. Good luck! '''[[User talk:Garden|<font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedoursecretsinthe</font><font style="color:#000099;">garden</font>]]''' 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Seen him around, and I don't have any problems with giving him the administrator right. Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]] [[User:Malinaccier Public|P]]. ([[User talk:Malinaccier Public|talk]])''' 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 144:
#'''Support'''. I see nothing in his history which indicates the tools would be abused. I think making Skomorokh an admin would be a great benefit to the site. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:darkgreen;">日本穣</span>]]<sup>[[Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<span style="color:blue;">投稿</span>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</small> 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' High quality editor, copes with disagreement well and has good knowledge of WIkipedia --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Why aren't you one already?''' [[User:Until It Sleeps|<
#'''Support''' Sensible guy. Why has nobody nominated you before?--[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Very strong support'''. One of the smartest editors I've encountered in my time on Wikipedia. Capable of working on a wide array of topics -- I think I first encountered him when he was working on bringing [[William Gibson]] on FA. I've found him someone who can disagree strongly without being disrespectful (a skill I lack), can help pull sense from chaos, and provide fresh perspectives to entrenched arguments. And he's never lost sight that the primary focus is the content. Precisely the sort of admin we need, in my opinion. --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] ([[User talk:JayHenry|talk]]) 21:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 150:
#'''Support''' Seems eminently reasonable to be sure. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#I can't think why, but I'd have probably opposed a year ago or so. I can't remember why, but I seem to remember some rather negative interaction between us, but can't remember. Since I can't remember or find any diffs, it would be daft to oppose with no evidence, so I support. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Trusted editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<
#'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck! [[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo]] ([[User talk:Pastor Theo|talk]]) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Could have sworn he was one. [[User:GlassCobra|<
#Not going to join in the "best editor ever" chorus above, but no obvious problems and would probably have a use for it. – [[User:Iridescent|<span style="color:#E45E05;">iride</span>]][[User talk:Iridescent|<span style="color:#C1118C;">scent</span>]] 00:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#Thought he was one, probably will wield the mop nicely, even though I had a [[User_talk:Skomorokh/ङ#Re:_Communism_and_religion_edits|~meh]] experience with him. [[User:Bsimmons666|'''Bsimmons<font color="#990000">666</font>''']] ([[User_talk:Bsimmons666|talk]]) 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#Per the "best editor ever" chorus above. Really wanted to find your dark secret, but sadly failed. Good luck. By the way, this goes straight into my quote book: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=293634426 incitements to terrorism I can appreciate, but the grammar and spacing are atrocious]". Classic. [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] ([[User talk:Jafeluv|talk]]) 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' This is one of the best editors that I have ever seen. I think this is one of the few editors who will get unanimous support. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]])
#God, so I've got everyone chatting about 'audited contributions', eh? :) Well, he's certainly got plenty of those, and looking at recent GA reviews he shows a strong willingness to improve articles beyond what he considers "ready", which is a major plus. His (rather limited) AfD contributions I've checked seem perfectly reasonable and inquisitive, and his answers at the help desk seem non-bitey, useful, and demonstrative of a grasp of general Wiki-knowledge. Full-on support. --
#'''<s>Strong</s> Weak support''' per the opposition. Still supporting though. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font> [[User:Download/Guestbook|<font color=#8A2BE2>sign!</font>]]'''</font> 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 164:
#'''Support''' One of the best. Clueful, friendly, and prolific. Hopefully won't spend too much time on admin actions, as his article improvements are of high value. -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 04:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I have seen lots of your good work around. Further review suggests you are insightful and often witty. That's good enough for me.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Strong support'''. Civil, capable, and witty...a very rare breed. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<
#'''Support''' - I have been waiting for this one. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] said it quite well: "I trust Skomorokh." ---<font face="Georgia">'''[[User:RepublicanJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">RepublicanJacobite</span>]]'''<sub>''[[User talk:RepublicanJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The'FortyFive'</span>]]''</sub></font> 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' From what I see you're a highly insightful and fair editor; even, per the neutral comment, towards ostracized groups of editors. I fully trust you with the tools. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<
#This RfA just made my day. Skomorokh has been someone who's made a huge imprint on me, an imprint of a hard working, dedicated, civil, humble, clueful, prolific, capable, insightful, and reasonable editor (what a mouthful). His article contributions are simply outstanding, and he manages to combine his article contributions with his other edits very nicely. It appears that he's not easily burned out, and can be a good admin for a while. I have complete confidence in him, and as such, I'm supporting his RfA. <small>([[User:X!|<span style="color:gray">X!</span>]] · [[User talk:X!|<span style="color:gray">talk</span>]]) · [[Swatch Internet Time|@285]] · </small> 05:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I wouldn't normally vote in a 62/0/0.999999 situation, but the quality of this production deserves my time to hit the edit button and pile on. '''[[User:Wadester16|<span style="color:darkred">wadester</span>]][[User talk:Wadester16|<span style="color:darkblue">16</span>]]''' 06:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 190:
#'''Support''' [[User:Tnxman307|<span style="color:darkorange;">TN</span>]][[User talk:Tnxman307|<b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|<span style="color:red;">Man</span>]] 16:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think Skomorokh will be an excellent admin, given what I've seen over the years. --[[User:Karbinski|Karbinski]] ([[User talk:Karbinski|talk]]) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' Most entertaining self-nomination ever. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<
#'''Support''' — [[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;"> // </span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I think he'll be an excellent admin! [[User:Ethan a dawe|Ethan a dawe]] ([[User talk:Ethan a dawe|talk]]) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''', would be a great asset to the overall project. [[User:Redthoreau|<font color="#FF3333">'''Red'''</font><font color="#FFCC00">'''thoreau'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Redthoreau|talk]])RT 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Totally. Level headed, pragmatic editor who is clearly here for the right reasons. A pleasure to add to the pile on :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<
#'''Support''' Already acts like one, might as well make it official ;-) [[User:J.delanoy|<
#Why the hell not? [[User:Pmlinediter|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue">Pmlin</span>]][[User_talk:Pmlinediter|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#800000">editor</span>]] 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Per wadester16, an excellent essay, and actually everything else. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 08:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 208:
#'''Support''' Good nom statement and answers to questions. Will do fine. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''[[User:Fastily|<big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small>]]'''</span> <sup><span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Fastily|(T<small>ALK</small>)]]</span></sup> 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#:'''Support''':Per Stifle.--[[User:Gordonrox24|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Gordonrox24|<sup><span style="font-family:Arial;color:red">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#:You've already supported, number 40. — '''''[[User:Explicit|<
#::Indented. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. The combination of mainspace contributions with interest in various admin areas show that the user will be good with the sysop abilities. Judging by the basis of their nomination, they have the ability to communicate clearly on the Wiki, and I'm glad to lend my support. -- [[User:Nomader|Nomader]] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">([[User talk:Nomader|Talk]])</span></sup> 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 215:
#'''Support''' I came accross the user on the wiki project vandalism studies and liked the thought he puts into his essays. I have not found a reason not to support. I think the user is very engaging and throughly thinks through problems. Full support [[User:Ottawa4ever|Ottawa4ever]] ([[User talk:Ottawa4ever|talk]]) 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Great editor who is well qualified to be an administrator. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' No problems. [[User talk:Triplestop|'''<
#'''Support''' — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] {{toolbar|separator=dot|[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]] }} 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#''' Support''' <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
#'''Support''' - I trust him to be a good admin. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – I thought he was one already. His conduct around the wiki, where i've encountered it, has been excellent. I can't recall any negative experiences that i've had with Skomorokh. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">[[User:Firestorm|<span style="color:black">'''''Firestorm'''''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Firestorm|<span style="color:red">'''''Talk'''''</span>]]</sup></span> 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. ;) '''[[User:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000080">iMatthew</span>]] <span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">[[User_talk:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7"><sup>talk</sup></span>]]</span>''' at 23:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Excellent user '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<
#This guy is great. And the lone neutral is laughable at best. [[User:Crotchety Old Man|Crotchety Old Man]] ([[User talk:Crotchety Old Man|talk]]) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I recognize this candidate only from work on his or her successful [[William Gibson]] FA. Smart and great user. -[[User:SusanLesch|SusanLesch]] ([[User talk:SusanLesch|talk]]) 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – I remember one time thinking that Skomorokh was an admin, then checked and was surprised to find 'twas not so. Not too long after that, I started making the same assumption and didn't check, and have since been carrying around the idea that this excellent communicator is an admin. Now I come across this RfA. It looks as if my confused little mind will soon be a little less confused. That's good. [[User:Paul Erik|<span style="font-family:Comic sans MS;">Paul Erik</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Paul Erik|<span style="color:blue;">(talk)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|<span style="color:green;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup></small> 04:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Civil, conscientious, courteous, well-informed, a consensus-builder – the editor has an great knack for “walking away from a fight" if the editing environment becomes too heated and personal. I wish that I had his patience. I admire him. [[User:J Readings|J Readings]] ([[User talk:J Readings|talk]]) 05:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per TRMan. [[User:Tony1|<
#'''Support''' Good content contributor and a decent amount of edits unlike the usual 4,000 been here 4 months lets grab some tools tyoe of candidates.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <
#Support. The candidate appears to be here to do what is necessary, what is compatible with the goal of the project, and what is clueful. —<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 14:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#:<s>Support. Credit where it is due. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)</s> Back to oppose. I have a very uneasy feeling about this one. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 17:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Calm, conscientious, rational. And writes well too! Has the temperament and competencies for the job. Unreservedly trust him. —[[User:Mattisse|<
#'''Support''' Certainly. [[User:Shappy|Meetare Shappy]] <sup>[[User Talk:Shappy|''Cunkelfratz!'']]</sup> 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Yes'''. No problems here. A good, solid content contributor and apparent knowledge of policy. [[User:Cool3|Cool3]] ([[User talk:Cool3|talk]]) 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<
#:<s>'''Support''' Knowledgeable, balanced and has a calm temperament. Good understanding of RS and NPOV. Need more of his ilk! [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)</s>
#::I am striking my !vote because I find the wording of comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Skomorokh&diff=301595641&oldid=301595292 the second part of this one] <small>("What is problematic about describing the Holocaust as something that is believed in? Is the minority opinion on the issue not termed 'Holocast denial'?")</small> troubling, and I have not looked into the editing history of Skomorokh deeply enough to know if this is just a matter of casual phrasing for rhetorical impact, or if it represents a more fundamental difference in our understanding what is NPOV and encyclopedic. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Finally somebody stood up to the obnoxious copy and paste questions. [[User:Bjweeks|BJ]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Bjweeks|Talk]]</sup></small> 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Obvious support''' for a super editor. I see below that some people have concerns about Skomorokh's views, opinions, and whatnot, but then again, who doesn't disagree with people now and then? I don't care about what Sk. believes about Ayn Rand or what her(?) WikiPhilosophy is.... I care that Skomorokh has an impressive understanding of WP policy and is a huge asset to the encyclopedia all over the place. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<
#: That comment really says it all, doesn't it. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - being [[WP:HONESTY|honest]] is the most important asset of an editor, and more so an admin. This guy reeks honesty. --[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] ([[User talk:Cerejota|talk]]) 04:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Colchicum|Colchicum]] ([[User talk:Colchicum|talk]]) 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support'''. Strong candidate, net positive. — '''''[[User:Explicit|<
# '''Strong Support'''. About time! '''[[User:Aaroncrick|<span style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC;color: #E49B0F">Aaroncrick</span>]]''' (''[[User_talk:Aaroncrick|<font color="#FE2712">talk</font>]]'') 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#090">have a cup</font>]] // [[WP:ARK|<font color="#4682b4">ark</font>]] // 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)</small>
Line 248:
#[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 06:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
# I'm [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] and of course I '''approve''' this message! - 10:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Definitely a net positive. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
#'''Support'''. net positive. If problems ''do'' occur, folks know where to come :) [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Absolutely. I've had nothing but good interaction with Skomorokh, who is among the smartest editors I know, and I like the way he is willing to think outside the box, however provocative that may be. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 258:
::I have to disagree with you here, Peter. The IP, although persistently difficult and unresponsive, ''did'' add some valuable material to the Rand related articles. Although I was ready to drop a banhammer on the IP a lot sooner than Skomorokh was, I have no intention of ever running for adminship, and except in the case of the most obvious, blatant vandalism, I think it's a very good thing for admins to show restraint with their banhammers. Far better for admins to err on the side of caution than on the side of drama. I will also say that I've consistently found Skomorokh (along with Readings, who I believe would also make a fine admin) one of the sanest and most reasonable editors in the Objectivism wikiproject. [[User:TallNapoleon|TallNapoleon]] ([[User talk:TallNapoleon|talk]]) 18:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::: OK strike for the moment but I would like Skomorokh to address some of these concerns. The strange views on Aristotle still disturb me. Talk page. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Appreciate the consideration, will comment on talk in the morning. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#'''Oppose''' Accusations of "slander" against good faith editors aren't something I expect from an admin. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
#:That sounds quite troubling. Do you have a diff? [[User:Cool3|Cool3]] ([[User talk:Cool3|talk]]) 01:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 265:
#:::::The supposedly 'slanderous' reference was in describing the Stormfront website as 'Neo Nazi'. Having [<nowiki>http://www.stormfront.org</nowiki>/forum/showthread.php?t=347702 checked out their website], it seems to me that it is. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#:::::: I've been away, sorry. If he had said "BLP concerns" rather than slander that would have been fine, and we could have discussed it. However the Neo-Nazi tag on that article is clearly appropriate and no slander was made or could reasonably have misinterpreted. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#:::::::Ciao, Verbal. I think perhaps unintentional semantic interpretations made the conversation a little more heated that it needed to be. I was objecting to the labelling of a group of people with a derogatory title when that label was not supported by the article at the time. There is a clear process for potentially controversial categorisation – find reliable sources to support a negative claim about the subject of the article, make sure there's consensus to include that claim in the article, and then add the appropriate categories. The way it had been done on this particular article – an editor adding a category "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&diff=prev&oldid=260129086 simply because]" they felt it applied was unfortunate. There were no legal or moral dimensions to my characterisation of your action as slanderous; it was an attempt to convey the seriousness of the issue. The subsequent situation would have been much less charged had I adopted a less confrontational manner. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#::::::: Actually I was agreeing with you, Verbal - referring to the fact it was neo-nazi, not that it was slanderous. There is something very disturbing about this editor, whom I have encountered before. He has an extremely libertarian view about the rights of extremist and POV groups to edit Wikipedia, which is a view (as you know) to which I am extremely opposed. There is a natural bias against NPOV by the fact these groups have such a strong incentive to get their view across, and I think that NPOV editors should be given a helping hand. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#::::::::You might be interested in [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#Stormfront_.28website.29|this conversation]] on the matter Peter; I suspect it might confirm your position. The [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Stormfront (website)/1|GA delisting]] of the Stormfront article over neutrality concerns might also be worth reading. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#::::::::: Thank you I have read that and now I am even more disturbed. You say "On a philosophical level, perhaps the difference between you and I Guy is that I think there is a very important difference between neutral point of view and mainstream point of view. You, me and the dog it the street might agree that Hitler was a genocidal dictator, but the Wikipedia entry on him says he was an Austrian-born politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. I don't understand why "just the facts, please" is not an appropriate way to handle controversial topics. " I agree with Guy there that WP is there to represent the mainstream point of view, which just is NPOV as we interpret it. You seem to be on a crusade here, Skomorokh. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 21:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#::::::::::I would agree, with qualification: Wikipedia should represent the mainstream point of view in matters of fact, but not make mainstream value judgements. "''Twilight'' was one of the best-selling works of young adult fiction sold in 2008" might be an appropriate sentence to include in a Wikipedia article on the novel; "''Twilight'' is unimaginative dross" would not. There's a reason articles on publications tend to have a "Critical reception" section rather than a "Quality" one. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#::::::::::: How is the claim about Hitler being a genocidal dictator, which you do not want Wikipedia to say, an 'opinion'? On any reasonable view, Hitler was both genocidal (by his authority many millions of people were exterminated) and he was a dictator. Keep on digging that hole for yourself. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 06:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#:<- I don't see how anyone could agree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&diff=260338691&oldid=260338036 this] edit, e.g. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#::There's nothing substantial about that edit; it only made the points that claims which are not in the main body of the article cannot be part of a summary of that article, and that the passive voice should be avoided (i.e. say "Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website" or "Stormfront is considered by A, B and C to be a neo-Nazi website" but not "Stormfront is considered to be a neo-Nazi website" as the latter is [[WP:WEASEL|weasely]]). [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#::: Yes you made similar weasel-like claims to remove any criticism of [[Ayn Rand]] in the introduction, I think. As a result of this Wikipedia's version of the truth resembles no other tertiary source in existence. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#::::What weasel-like claims? It's wildly inaccurate to say the current state of the introduction of the Ayn Rand article is "as a result" of my edits. The encyclopaedia must distinguish between fact and opinion, per [[WP:ASF]], and not try to mince the two to introduce POV. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#:::::Peter Damian has a point here. That as article is crap and biased is not a reason to make the lead crap and biased. I's rather have the lead summarized the ideal article rather than the current one. --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#::::::Having witnessed the fractious efforts of editors trying to agree as to what the ideal version of the lead is, I came to the conclusion that it is better to get the work done first. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
# '''Oppose'''. I prefer not to award powers and privileges to people who don't assign any importance to other editors' rights. [[User:Groomtech|Groomtech]] ([[User talk:Groomtech|talk]]) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
#:What, because Sk didn't respond to your stock question, suddenly that means s/he doesn't care about editors' rights? <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<
#::Apparently not: at least, not enough to want to make any position known. [[User:Groomtech|Groomtech]] ([[User talk:Groomtech|talk]]) 10:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#:::I'm sorry Groomtech, but as other candidates have pointed out before, that question is far too vague to be able to give a useful answer to. My stance on editor's rights should be very clear from my contributions, and while no-one expects you to trawl through every edit a candidate makes, it is expected that !voters familiarise themselves with the candidate through researching, especially in areas in which one has a particular interest. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#::::Some candidates have thought it important enough to address and answer, others have not. As I said, I prefer not to support those who have not. [[User:Groomtech|Groomtech]] ([[User talk:Groomtech|talk]]) 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#:::::Hooray. Another RfA shtick for the 'crats to ignore. [[User:Crotchety Old Man|Crotchety Old Man]] ([[User talk:Crotchety Old Man|talk]]) 15:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 287:
#'''Oppose''' Okay, this is entirely symbolic and I don't really want nor expect to see this fail, but I do have an uneasy feeling. I applaud you for not 'playing the game', taking control and initiative in the RfA and not being a doormat for fear of losing supporters. While self-confidence can be a fantastic quality, it also can lead to mistakes and an unwillingness to admit them. You are indeed experienced, and have an obvious legion of supporters compared to a modicum of opposers, and are not one I'd expect to go nuts, but I wanted to ensure you wouldn't get ahead of yourself. You are a fantastic editor who is probably more valuable than I, but everyone always reads the opposes, and I just wanted to voice that small concern. I look forward to seeing you wield the tools. :) \ [[User:Backslash Forwardslash|Backslash Forwardslash]] / {[[User Talk: Backslash Forwardslash|talk]]} 09:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - I cannot trust this user as a user let alone an admin from what I have seen in the manner in which they have expressed their views. I will probably not expand because my votes have already been declared invalid by at least one Crat so it would be a waste of time to bother. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#:For what it's worth, I would be interested in reading your thoughts, even if others are not. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
#::It deals with many of the individuals and positions you have defended. I defend people that have had some civility problems or disputes. However, there are certain people with certain mindsets that use Wikipedia for the wrong reasons (promoting their twisted viewpoint) and I have seen far too many defenses of such people that give me a really bad feeling. I have also seen a few key alterations of key words that make me feel that there is a lack of neutrality, or an overcompensating to be "nice" to a group in order to seem to be neutral. But as I said, my vote will be discounted (and your percentage is way too good in your favor regardless) so you wont have to care. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Sorry, although this editor knows how to write, I don't quite trust him with the tools. [[User:Cardamon|Cardamon]] ([[User talk:Cardamon|talk]]) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 305:
::::No not him, the admin that I mistook has a name with different fruit. :) I reviewed the complaint more closely, and found less legitimate because the candidate did for NPOV.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
:I am troubled by that ANI report. Mathsci, a respected editor, had some critical things to say there. It's odd that Skomorokh never responded there. Skomoroh, admins must be responsive to criticism. Can you explain why we should not see this as a potentially bad omen? --[[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]] ([[User talk:Goodmorningworld|talk]]) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::I had a look at that incident too; in the end the conclusion I came to was that it was rather overblown. My impression of Skomorokh's activities there was that at worst s/he was possibly taking a slightly too verificationist stance - the ANI report seemed premature and possibly based on personal disagreements; and the diffs provided to demonstrate a 3RR violation were ''seriously'' pushing the definition of a "revert". Skomorokh seemed, to me, to be removing the unreferenced PoV from the article rather than adding more; and cutting the content down to only that which was strictly supported by the sources. I'm not entirely sure Skomorokh behaved quite ideally there (a lucid response to the allegations at ANI probably would have helped, and perhaps a slow-down in editing while disagreements were settled) but ultimately I did not come to the conclusion that there was anything overtly bad going on. ~ [[User:Mazca|<
:::Yup, I was aware of that too, and I disregarded it. You can expect most people who come to RFA with 40k edits to have had some drama in their history (and if not, they aren't ready to be an admin because they're not venturing into controversial areas and hence lack relevant experience). In that case, I find the complaints against Skomorokh ill-founded, and his handling of drama by ignoring it rather appropriate.—[[User:S Marshall|<
:Yo, sorry for not addressing this earlier. Mazca above nails the aspect of my approach that contributed to the problem; I could certainly have handled the matter better, not realising at the time the sensitivity of American race relations. I don't remember that particular ANI thread, though the initiator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skomorokh&diff=260336655&oldid=260331057 did notify me]. Of course, for an administrator, ignoring drama is not an option. The issue spawned multiple threads as I recall, including [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#Stormfront_.28website.29|this one]] in which I discussed the article with Mathsci. Cheers, [[user:Skomorokh|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"><font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh </font></span>]] 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#I think Skomorokh is a smart editor, makes intelligent comments in discussions and has contributions commensurate with what I expect from an administrator. On the other hand, Skomorokh has (on one occasion that I've seen) criticised the blocking/banning of disruptive pro-pedophilia advocates and Holocaust deniers - describing the former (since banned) of [[ephebophilia]], and the latter (since banned) of having an ''epistemological'' difference of opinion on the Holocaust. Perhaps this will sound like sour grapes, as the comment I refer to was left on my own RfA over a year ago. I hope the fact that this is a neutral and that more than a year has passed will allay those concerns, but perhaps not. But for his position on these issues, which I still find troubling, I would support. [[User:Nathan|<strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan</strong>]][[User talk:Nathan|<sup><strong style="color:#0033CC"> T </strong></sup>]] 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
#:Rereading that comment I made, I am somewhat shamed at its tone; I think I got rather caught up in the stridency of the debate and was more concerned with taking a firm stance than with keeping in mind that the topic at hand was a human being (and volunteer at that) rather than a policy issue. I do resolutely stand behind my position that neither belief in the Holocaust nor sexual attraction to adults are prerequisites for editing the encyclopaedia, though I could have expressed that more clearly at the time. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:::Wait, "neither belief in the Holocaust nor sexual attraction to adults are prerequisites for editing"? Are these things about which reasonable people disagree? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't see what your question has to do with the quotation. One's sexual attraction is not considered something subject to reason, in that one can't make a rational decision to be a heterosexual, homosexual, zoophile, whatever. I don't think the historical accuracy of the consensus reality of the Holocaust is something most people I'd consider reasonable debate, but then I don't see what that has to do with editing Wikipedia. Everyone has personal beliefs, and as long as those beliefs are consistent with the projects goals, and one does not try to inappropriately slant the encyclopaedia towards them, I don't see how restricting contributors on ideological grounds is at all justifiable. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:::::"The consensus reality of the Holocaust?" Seriously? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, "what most people believe the Holocaust to be". Look I have absolutely no controversial beliefs about the Holocaust whatsoever, it's not something I have ever taken an interest in or read about in any depth. Could you be a little more obvious about what you are looking for me to answer? [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:::::::I'm concerned these ideas of a "consensual reality," and the holocaust as something to be believed in, will lead to over-representation of fringe theories, and to some kind of wiki-neutrality that doesn't match what a man would see reading the sources. I have to observe the community is giving you a ringing endorsement, so there's no need to get upset about my concerns. Thanks for taking time to reply. I'll think about what you've said. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::No worries, I would say that there probably are philosophical differences between us on the matter, but as an editor it is extremely rare that I get involved in content with fringe debates. I am not at all upset at thus point, merely a little exasperated at my failure to make myself understood. I appreciate your patience and direct manner. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
::::::::: Rarely get involved in fringe debates? So why do you say recommend [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Avruch&diff=220406416&oldid=220401052 here] that editors should ideally "pick an unpopular or marginal viewpoint and try and correct the mainstream bias by writing from a neutral point of view on it"? Why get involved in [[Ayn Rand]] and Stormfront and pedophilia-related issues?[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 08:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I made that recommendation because I believe that it is a good way to put the NPOV policy to the test and learn the nuances and pitfalls involved. I have devoted almost no attention to sexuality-related topics, I began editing the Stormfront article as a challenge to see if I could develop it to [[WP:GA|GA standard]] (as mentioned above), and I found Rand to be an interesting cultural anomaly. All together these topics – thankfully – have been the focus of a tiny minority of my edits, and more trouble than they are worth. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
::::::::::: But when you do get involved, it is in an ''extremely'' controversial way. As a parent, I find your views about pedophile editors - one of whom was rightly blocked after an incident involving an under-age RfA - ''extremely'' disturbing. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 09:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::An scholarly project that would ban [[Plato]], [[John Henry Mackay|Mackay]] and [[Oscar Wilde|Wilde]] from contributing out of disapproval of their private lives would not be worthy of the name. A sad state of affairs indeed, and [[Bertrand_Russell#Second_World_War|how little things change]]. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
::::Well no, obviously they are ''extreme'' minority opinions. However, one's "crazy" beliefs don't inhibit their ability to edit. Of course if soemone with said belief is being disruptive they can be blocked for being disruptive, but merely having the belief isn't a reason to prohibit them from editing. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 20:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Describing the holocaust as something that's ''believed in'' is problematic, but I'm more concerned with the philosophy underlying the statement. This seems likely to encourage yet more overemphasis of fringe theories, and a presentation that measures neutrality by some standard other than what the reliable sources say. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
:::: That is precisely my problem with this editor. My view is that Wikipedia should reflect other tertiary sources as far as possible. The idea that we can synthesise our own view of what is verifiable seems guaranteed to encourage every kind of fringe theory. Indeed, my experience of Skomorokh is precisely that. He talks about verifiability a lot, but the end result is very different. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I am probably only digging my hole deeper by replying at this point, but I maintain that I write articles which take the POV advanced by the majority of the sources. To take a few examples of articles I am primarily responsible for, [[anarchy in Somalia]] is written from a right-libertarian-capitalist POV, [[CrimethInc.]] is written from an anti-capitalist anarchist POV, and [[Katie Sierra suspension controversy]] from a Sierra-sympathetic POV because of the sum perspective of the references used. I absolutely reject the notion that "we can synthesise our own view of what is verifiable". [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:::::: I absolutely and categorically reject the idea that we accept the POV of 'the majority of the sources'. The ''reliability'' of the source is only what counts. Where reliable sources disagree, then perhaps we have to synthesise. Even there, we should ensure that the position expressed by Wikipedia is not ''too'' different from that given by Britannica. Any other way guarantees disaster. You can find many more sources on the view that diesel fumes cannot kill human beings than otherwise, but this does not mean those sources are correct. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I was about to jump in with a clarification about the weighted perspective of the comprehensive reliable sources used in the article, but at this point, I think I am wasting my time. Your manner of investigation seems to be primarily concerned with interpreting my comments so to confirm existing hypotheses rather than understanding. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:::::::: I'm sorry my understanding of what you said was based on a reasonable ''interpretation'' of what you say. You only mentioned 'weighting' very recently. And how exactly are these sources to be 'weighted'? Do you give e.g. 30% 'weight' to article X on holocaust denial on the Stormfront website, or what? My approach is to discount all possibly unreliable sources completely and entirely. And if you think you are now wasting your time that rather suggests it is ''you'' who are interpreting comments so to confirm existing hypotheses rather than understanding. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 08:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::"My approach is to discount all possibly unreliable sources completely and entirely." Then we are in complete agreement, as that is just the approach I took to sourcing the Stormfront article. Regards, [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
::::{{ec}}What is problematic about describing the Holocaust as something that is believed in? Is the minority opinion on the issue not termed "Holocast denial"? [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:::::We don't say people ''believe in'' Los Angles, or the M2 Browning machine gun. Why would we say that people, or even an overwhelming majority of historians, ''believe in'' the holocaust? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::I'm not a native English speaker, so I am probably not the best person to ask. I think "believe in ''x''" in this context is used to mean something like "accepts the veracity of the most well-known description of ''x''". I'm really not sure where you are going with this though. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:Skomorokh's point seems to be that we should be tolerant of editors whose ideology we find offensive, because it does not necessarily impact or reflect the nature of their mainspace editing. He is right that such editors may not produce defective content, though they often do. Even so, that we know the views of these editors at all indicates they openly profess them. I'm not talking about editors taking a position on the conflict in the Middle East, or holding a nationalist point of view on Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia. I'm referring to Holocaust deniers and advocates of violence, race hatred and pedophilia. People who openly admit and argue these beliefs are among the very few whose simple presence is so disruptive to the community that it damages the encyclopedia. I realize that banning people for their beliefs treads on truly dangerous ground, but I submit that we have in fact been doing this for some time without major incident and without expanding to less widely objectionable views. (Well, truthfully and given the forum for this comment, we've banned people for arguing that there are too many administrators or that self-nominations are a sign of power hunger...) I also understand the view that we should condemn these people without silencing them, and as a matter of public policy I wholeheartedly agree - but Wikipedia is a private project created for a specific purpose, and it is not and should not be required to accept individuals whose stated views are so strongly offensive to the vast majority of the community that makes Wikipedia what it is.
:I personally see this as separate from the concerns expressed by others, that Skomorokh's position as I've described it above indicates he will be tolerant of POV editors in other areas; that may well be the case, but I prefer not to conflate tolerance for Holocaust deniers and pedophilia advocates with tolerance for people who believe in cold fusion or the deadly effects of vaccine preservatives and fluoridated water. [[User:Nathan|<strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan</strong>]][[User talk:Nathan|<sup><strong style="color:#0033CC"> T </strong></sup>]] 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 337:
:Nathan draws a crucial distinction between editors with minority views, those who openly profess such views on Wikipedia, and those who attempt to inappropriately edit encyclopaedia content to reflect those views. That third group is POV-pushers, and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. The second group, while not having necessarily done anything wrong as far as norms of conduct go, show by their profession that they [[WP:NOR|don't get it]] – that editors' perspectives on topics are irrelevant to how articles should be written – and in my experience ''usually'' end up on the wrong side of an NPOV dispute sooner or later. It's the suggestion that the first group – editors with minority viewpoints who neither feel the need to profess them at length nor push them in articles – be banned outright that I object to. Simply having a belief is not a punishable offence, i.e. [[thoughtcrime]]. Passing judgement and banning editors for single non-elective traits they shared with ''others'' who had been troublesome in the past is to fail to assess each editor on their merits – in other words, prejudice. The problem is not that it is unfair, it's that it is detrimental to the progress of a free, quality encyclopaedia.
:Nathan says "I realize that banning people for their beliefs treads on truly dangerous ground, but I submit that we have in fact been doing this for some time without major incident and without expanding to less widely objectionable views." I don't believe this is a tenable strategy; we don't have to cast our minds back very far to remember when participation on [[WP:BADSITES]] was enough to tar and feather an editor. The issue here is that whatever problematic belief you chose to make worthy of banning – Zionism, paedophilia-acceptance, cold fusion advocate – it will always be used by unscrupulous editors as a label to stick to their disputants and advance their position in the power struggle. This is not hypothetical; if you were around in 2007 you will remember this as a favourite tactic of certain notorious and now fallen-from-grace power-admins. Ultimately, it is the neutrality of the articles which matters, not the personalities, and futile efforts to neutralize editors will only be exploited in the end. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background:
:: The key point is "those who attempt to inappropriately edit encyclopaedia content to reflect those views.". In my view you have been far too lenient in your desire that ''everyone'' should edit, and the result has been bad. The [[Ayn Rand]] and associated articles are a case in point. No reasonable person would think that the sheer proliferation of Rand-related material reflects current mainstream academic consensus. The reality is that it reflects the determined efforts of a crowd of fans, who refuse to let any kind of negative comment about Objectivism. This is a very serious problem for Wikipedia, and a very difficult one. Your view seems to be that neutrally-minded editors should put up or shut up. As for destroying Wikipedia, the community itself seems to be managing this quite well. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 06:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
::Well, if nothing else this is as interesting a discussion as I've seen in the neutral section of an RfA. I don't advocate taking action against editors in group number 1 (those who hold a view), and in any case we couldn't - how would we identify them? In the specific cases that prompted your original comment a year ago, the editors involved had openly professed their views (including a man-girl love userbox and many discussion comments for the PPA, and anti-Semitic comments on noticeboards and elsewhere for the denier) and were involved in editing articles in the areas of dispute. As with any subjective decision making process, its impossible to draw a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable - but [[Potter Stewart]] knew how to deal with that problem, and so do we. I respect your position, though I disagree, and since my vote in any section will not effect the outcome I'll remain neutral. [[User:Nathan|<strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan</strong>]][[User talk:Nathan|<sup><strong style="color:#0033CC"> T </strong></sup>]] 15:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:''The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
| |||