User talk:Somitho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives may be found at: User talk:Somitho/Archive 1

[edit] RFA time!

You may find this page's section to be of assistant. Congratulations! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soms... so we meet again.

So you've Created an Account, eh?

Well, on IRC you may be a person.

But on Wikipedia, I am a person.

~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not banned you from the internet. You had been asked to calm down and stop trolling/harassing numerous times. You took your harassment further so I chose to contact your ISP. They chose to do what they would like. I'd appreciate you not bringing it here. Somitho 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"OMG OMG OMG" ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

That's an interesting response. Admins cop a hell of a lot of abuse and rude comments and your sensitive reaction makes me feel assured that I was correct that you just aren't ready for adminship. Additionally, I did not say your RfA "should have been SNOW'ed" because you have less than that 2,000 edits. I simply made the observation that usually such RfAs ARE SNOWed and I couldn't understand the supporter's comments. Your questions-as-comments regarding editing test wikis and such don't change the fact that an RfA candidate with less than 70 mainspace edits, less than 15 article talk edits, less than 100 user talk edits and less than 160 project edits has no real chance of passing RfA. It has nothing to do with making nonsense edits or editing to please other people and everything to do with demonstrating experience and knowledge to the community. This is impossible to do with so few edits. I have seen other candidates with lower-than-usual edit counts get through RFA on the basis that they prepare their edits off-site and make them in one go, but never with a total edit count anywhere near as low as 370. Perhaps if you get more experience on Wiki, instead of IRC, and take the time to review other people's RfAs you will come to see that yourself. And yes, it certainly was a very Twilight Zone-ish experience. Sarah 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my comments on your RfA

Hi there, I'm glad that you found my comments helpful. I try to explain my reasoning in my RfA votes, especially when opposing, so that the candidate can see what he or she does well or could improve upon. I personally think it's more useful than just saying "Oppose per xxxx."

Now that your RfA has been closed, I do want to point out a comment you made in response to User:Flameviper:

"Your persistent trolling in #wikipedia-en lead User:Sean Black to ban you. User:Bumm13 banned you in #wikipedia, I banned you in #wikipedia-social. Stop the harassing / trolling. Second, do not take out issues regarding IRC here. If you have a complaint you can take it up with an IRC Group Contact. Somitho 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)"

I didn't want to bring this up while your RfA was still active, but I think it would have been better if you didn't write "Your persistent trolling [...] harassing / trolling." because it makes you sound as if you want to discredit Flameviper based on off-wiki behaviour, and there is a certain conflict of interest in your doing this. It might also be seen as being vindictive, which is something that an administrator absolutely should not be.

It would have been better if you just typed "Please do not take out issues regarding IRC here." As Sarah pointed out, the RfA should have centered around on-wiki contributions, not on whatever you or Flameviper may have said on IRC. I don't know what the full story is behind this conflict, nor do I care to find out.

I hope that you will grow from this experience and perhaps become a more promising RfA candidate in the future. --Kyoko 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, I would like to say that based on past experience with power he has been given elsewhere, I was merely stating the obvious. Add his off-wiki negligence to his on-wiki inexperience, and we have a Flameviper Oppose^(R). ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

Can Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-11 Islamic democracy be closed? --Ideogram 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCU and clerks

Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:

• Consider adding yourself to the list of active clerks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks.
• In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
• Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
• Add Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard to your watchlist to stay up to do date on the latest communications happening regarding this role.
• "Be aware that this position is rather dull and carries no particular prestige; status-seeking will not be looked upon kindly."

I am not involved with the checkuser system. I am acting only to inform you of this change. Thank you. --Durin 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Religious democracy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Religious democracy, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious democracy 2. Thank you. - David Oberst 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)