Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kakofonous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Edit count
User:Kakofonous
run at Mon May 5 00:07:07 2008 GMT
Category talk: 2
Category: 38
Image: 43
Mainspace 3317
Portal talk: 2
Portal: 70
Talk: 454
Template talk: 18
Template: 63
User talk: 788
User: 165
Wikipedia talk: 17
Wikipedia: 396
avg edits per page 1.47
earliest 18:16, 23 November 2007
number of unique pages 3646
total 5373
2007/11 14
2007/12 512
2008/1 1154
2008/2 2187
2008/3 1379
2008/4 0
2008/5 127
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
68 Jazz drumming
43 Jena Six
43 Gilberto Gil
28 The Cool Kids
23 Rapping
21 Baltimore club
16 Daara J
16 Tornadoes of 2007
14 Wei Wenhua
14 Steelpan
14 Positive Black Soul
13 Paleolithic diet
12 Manu Chao
10 Caetano Veloso
10 Philippine Idol
Talk:
15 Jazz drumming
6 In Rainbows
6 Gilberto Gil
6 The Cool Kids
6 Timpani
6 Positive Black Soul
5 Saxophone
5 Rage Against the Machine
5 Greg Skrepenak
5 Daara J
4 History of hip hop music
4 The Maid Freed from the Gallows
4 Paleolithic diet
4 Oasis (band)
4 Mike Hudema
Category:
5 B-Class Percussion articles
5 Start-Class Percussion articles
5 Stub-Class Percussion articles
5 GA-Class Percussion articles
4 List-Class Percussion articles
3 Percussion articles by quality
Image:
2 Funky Drummer sample.ogg
2 Mr. Bobby.ogg
2 O Leãozinho.ogg
2 The African Beat cover.jpg
2 ATCQ - Find A Way.ogg
2 MAG-11.png
2 Spoonie Gee - Spoonin' Rap.ogg
2 CheckTheRhime.ogg
Portal:
7 Percussion
5 Percussion/Topics
4 Percussion/Selected picture
4 Percussion/Selected picture/Archives
3 Percussion/Related WikiProjects
3 Percussion/Selected article
3 Percussion/Did you know
3 Percussion/Quality articles
2 Percussion/Intro
2 Percussion/Things you can do
Portal talk:
2 Percussion
Template:
18 GA number
11 WikiProject Percussion
6 Did you know/Next update
4 Percussion
3 De La Soul
2 Manu Chao
2 Rudimental Percussion
Template talk:
15 Did you know
3 WikiProject Percussion
User:
71 Kakofonous
28 Kakofonous/Contributions
11 Kakofonous/monobook.js
9 Kakofonous/Sandbox
9 Kakofonous/About me
6 Kakofonous/Userboxes
4 Specter01010
3 Kakofonous/monobook.css
2 ImperviusXR
2 Kakofonous/box-header
User talk:
55 Kakofonous
24 Dihydrogen Monoxide
13 Realist2
12 EvanSeeds
7 ImperviusXR
6 Toddst1
5 Phenylalanine
5 Basilex
4 Harish101
4 24.226.248.217
4 Laser brain
4 Wildroot
4 SandyGeorgia
3 99.227.206.169
3 DerHexer/archive08
Wikipedia:
73 Good article nominations
37 Administrator intervention against vandalism
24 WikiProject Percussion
19 Good articles
18 Good articles/recent
12 Usernames for administrator attention
10 Featured article candidates/Gilberto Gil
9 Requests for page protection
8 Peer review/Gilberto Gil/archive1
8 Requests for adminship/Kakofonous
7 Peer review/Jazz drumming/archive1
7 Featured article candidates/Paleolithic-style diet
5 WikiProject Council/Proposals
5 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
5 Requests for adminship/Toddst1
Wikipedia talk:
14 WikiProject Percussion
3 Good article nominations
[edit] Moved Edit Count discussion
- Why is not the Candidates’ contribution history listed on the discussion page, 22 hours after nomination. Typically, in all other requests for Administrator, it is there when opinions are asked for. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's Mathbot's responsibility. Maybe it's being lazy this week.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- No! Sorry to say that is the responsibility of the Nominator and the Candidate to make sure all information to make an informed decision is easily available. Why would this case be different. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The edit count link is provided uner General Comments. Wether you click that link or the one to the discussion page, it's the same thing. The first one's just prettier.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I’m sorry to be argumentative, but why is it that when the information has always been provided in one area, now it is provided in a completely different area? Have procedures changed? If so, note it! If not, what is right for one, should right for all? Or are we working under separate rules based on the individual? ShoesssS Talk 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe this RFA was slightly malformed (though I'm unlcear why and not 100% certain), as it appeared slightly oddly in Tangobot's reports earlier today. This may have been why mathbot did not collect the data and post it to talk. Mathbot's efforts are recent Shoesss - it used to be done by hand. There has been no change of "area". The bigger question, of course, is why a summary of edit count and editing areas is important at all. I've allways found a review of contributions and talk pages far more illuminating. Pedro : Chat 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I’m sorry to be argumentative, but why is it that when the information has always been provided in one area, now it is provided in a completely different area? Have procedures changed? If so, note it! If not, what is right for one, should right for all? Or are we working under separate rules based on the individual? ShoesssS Talk 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Pedro, I don't know what happened, but this RfA did appear to be malformed and it does look like the bot must have missed it. As for it being the responsibility of the Nominator and the Candidate that isn't correct. If it were, then it would be listed as one of the steps to perform, but the assumption is that abot will add it. The fact that the bot failed in this case, shouldn't be used against the candidate.Balloonman (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I am sorry if I am coming across as pigheaded and stubborn tonight! Remember, as my wife always tells me, I am Irish and German :-) explaining a lot in my personality. However, just give me a minute to explain where I am coming from. First, to Pedro you make a great point! Edit counts do not count for much when an editor has both experience, more that three – four months, and an average of a little more than 1.47 average edit count. Sorry to say, by my personal opinion, neither qualifies for the administrator tools. To Balloonman, as you will note in my opinion. I did not even mention the lack of information. I though I expressed my opinion on the reasons why I did not support the candidate, not for a lack of information on the individual. Regarding the responsibility of a person asking for the tools to provide the information as has it has always been provided in the past, yes sorry to say, I do count that as part of my reasoning. I would hope that a candidate and their nominator would want to supply all the pertainate information, in one area and in a form and place that has always been used in the past, and make it as easily accessible as possible, to all editors expressing an opinion, Hope this explains my little tantrum tonight. Take care all. ShoesssS Talk 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Shoessss, your oppose stands, and I understand and respect it - no one in this discussion section is questioning it - you brought the matter here! As for your assertion that the candidate and nominator should bring relevant information or ensure it is supplied - can't you see the issue? They would assume that a bot would provide it, as it normally would. When I hit "Save page" in a moment I assume the mediawiki software will render my comments. There is no inherent difference. It's nonsense and a misunderstanding of the software to cast blame on editors in this instance. They expected the software to work. So did you when you posted your comments, as I do when I post mine. You are blaming editors for a "fault" in a computer system that is nothing to do with them and out of their control. That's unfair.Pedro : Chat 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- And my answer would be; “How long do we blame the software once the problem has been noted?” One hour – two or indefinitely? If you would like, I can post, in the pretty mode as .--KojiDude pointed out. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- And my response is - we are not apportioning blame. It didn't work. If you want to fix it, then fix it. I accept your oppose but I fail to see how on earth a good faith assumption that the bot will work, that transpires not to be so, is any reason to have a thread about how the candidate and nominator have somehow failed in presenting information properly. Honestly, how you feel this relates to the candidates abilities to use admin buttons wisely is, frankly, unclear. Pedro : Chat 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- And my answer would be; “How long do we blame the software once the problem has been noted?” One hour – two or indefinitely? If you would like, I can post, in the pretty mode as .--KojiDude pointed out. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Shoessss, your oppose stands, and I understand and respect it - no one in this discussion section is questioning it - you brought the matter here! As for your assertion that the candidate and nominator should bring relevant information or ensure it is supplied - can't you see the issue? They would assume that a bot would provide it, as it normally would. When I hit "Save page" in a moment I assume the mediawiki software will render my comments. There is no inherent difference. It's nonsense and a misunderstanding of the software to cast blame on editors in this instance. They expected the software to work. So did you when you posted your comments, as I do when I post mine. You are blaming editors for a "fault" in a computer system that is nothing to do with them and out of their control. That's unfair.Pedro : Chat 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I am sorry if I am coming across as pigheaded and stubborn tonight! Remember, as my wife always tells me, I am Irish and German :-) explaining a lot in my personality. However, just give me a minute to explain where I am coming from. First, to Pedro you make a great point! Edit counts do not count for much when an editor has both experience, more that three – four months, and an average of a little more than 1.47 average edit count. Sorry to say, by my personal opinion, neither qualifies for the administrator tools. To Balloonman, as you will note in my opinion. I did not even mention the lack of information. I though I expressed my opinion on the reasons why I did not support the candidate, not for a lack of information on the individual. Regarding the responsibility of a person asking for the tools to provide the information as has it has always been provided in the past, yes sorry to say, I do count that as part of my reasoning. I would hope that a candidate and their nominator would want to supply all the pertainate information, in one area and in a form and place that has always been used in the past, and make it as easily accessible as possible, to all editors expressing an opinion, Hope this explains my little tantrum tonight. Take care all. ShoesssS Talk 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The edit count link is provided uner General Comments. Wether you click that link or the one to the discussion page, it's the same thing. The first one's just prettier.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- No! Sorry to say that is the responsibility of the Nominator and the Candidate to make sure all information to make an informed decision is easily available. Why would this case be different. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, and when do we arbitrarily move discussions? I totally disagree with this.ShoesssS Talk 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I moved it because it got really lengthy, and had more or less nothing to do with the RfA itself. And, this isn't the first time discussions have been moved off RfA's[1].--KojiDude (Contributions) 00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Lengthy discussions are very common in Rfas. Regarding having noting to do with the candidacy, sorry to disagree, but I believe it was stated; “…responsibility of a person asking for the tools to provide the information as has it has always been provided in the past, yes sorry to say, I do count that as part of my reasoning” To just remove the information is wrong. Let it stand and have faith in editors that they will regard the information as necessary by either putting weight into the argument or ignoring as they see fit. That is not your decision to decide, rather theirs. ShoesssS Talk 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- And the latest trend has been to remove long discussions that are not relevant to the candidate's RfA... this has been done numerous times---mostly in regards to discussions concerning Kurt's opposes for self-noms, but there have been other cases over the past month. And long standing precidence elsewhere. When the discussion becomes disruptive to the RfA, we've been moving it to the talk page.Balloonman (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- You are right, I have seen it done, once with regards to Kurts opinion on a candidate’s answer to a question. However, that discussion did not concern the candidate or procedures regarding the nomination. It concerned a policy regarding a situation with regards to Wikipedia policy that had noting to do with the individual up for Administrator position . (And between you and me, I thought the individual answered the question just right). In this case, I do not believe I have strayed off the path of addressing the situation as it relates to this candidate or the procedures followed in this Rfa nomination. If we just arbitrarily remove discussions here why not in Afd or close calls in CSI or for that matter any XFD discussion that an individual believes distracts from their precieved view of how the discussion should go. Again, just my opinion. But hey, isn’t that what consensus is about? Thanks for listing. ShoesssS Talk 04:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- And the latest trend has been to remove long discussions that are not relevant to the candidate's RfA... this has been done numerous times---mostly in regards to discussions concerning Kurt's opposes for self-noms, but there have been other cases over the past month. And long standing precidence elsewhere. When the discussion becomes disruptive to the RfA, we've been moving it to the talk page.Balloonman (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lengthy discussions are very common in Rfas. Regarding having noting to do with the candidacy, sorry to disagree, but I believe it was stated; “…responsibility of a person asking for the tools to provide the information as has it has always been provided in the past, yes sorry to say, I do count that as part of my reasoning” To just remove the information is wrong. Let it stand and have faith in editors that they will regard the information as necessary by either putting weight into the argument or ignoring as they see fit. That is not your decision to decide, rather theirs. ShoesssS Talk 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
I apologise if I have failed in what you believe to be my responsibility. It never occurred to me that creating this RfA in userspace (User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Kakofonous4Admin) would affect the mathbot stuff - sorry about that. Out of curiosity, though, why can't you vote without an edit count posted for you? Surely it's quality, not quantity, that counts... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- In all fairness to User:Shoessss, it is hard to see quality without also considering quantity. (One could digress into statistics but I see that there is already enough of that going around!)--RegentsPark (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I’m sorry, but if you note, I did express an opinion already ( before I posted my concerns with regards to edit counts). However, to address your remarks more specifically, if we have policy and opinions, expressed on a format that shows information in a certain way, all editors should have the opportunity to form their opinions based on that information given that specified way. However, when we have a candidate that comes before us and the information is not available in the same format, I believe they have circumventive the “established system” and may have garnered an unfair advantage, in that people base their remarks on the information available as they are use to seeing it. My point, was that it took over a day to rectify the problem and over 6 hours since I pointed it out in my edit summary. I know I am splitting hairs here and being a pain in the but, but (no pun intended) if we are going to be an Administrator and point to the rules and enforce policy we have to follow the rules and policy. Thanks! ShoesssS Talk 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't aware you had already answered my question - I only skimmed the discussion. I understand what you're saying (though I disagree with it)...thanks for responding. Have a nice day, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I’m sorry, but if you note, I did express an opinion already ( before I posted my concerns with regards to edit counts). However, to address your remarks more specifically, if we have policy and opinions, expressed on a format that shows information in a certain way, all editors should have the opportunity to form their opinions based on that information given that specified way. However, when we have a candidate that comes before us and the information is not available in the same format, I believe they have circumventive the “established system” and may have garnered an unfair advantage, in that people base their remarks on the information available as they are use to seeing it. My point, was that it took over a day to rectify the problem and over 6 hours since I pointed it out in my edit summary. I know I am splitting hairs here and being a pain in the but, but (no pun intended) if we are going to be an Administrator and point to the rules and enforce policy we have to follow the rules and policy. Thanks! ShoesssS Talk 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Oppose – I am in full agreement that the tools are no big deal. However, I do want to see someone with a little more that 4 months experience with Wikipedia as shown here [1]. If we start to use the standards that after four months; “…I trust the individual with the tools”. Why not give the administrative tools to all editors say after three months of no complaints by other editors. In addition, don’t we want the individuals applying for the administrative tools to have some experience in other areas? Like administrative? I do not see that with this candidate. Is this reflection of the candidate’s ability or knowledge to use the extra buttons? Of course not! Is this a question of the individual’s competency? Yes! Four months is to short a time to judge the individuals character. Sorry. ShoesssS Talk 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- 2. Oppose With all due respect to DMHO, I can not support a candidate who has only four months experience as an editor. ArcAngel (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
why does someone need more than 4 months experience? they haven't had a block, theress no vanadlism, no incivillity no pointy rfds no editwaring or abusing proccess. admins can learn on the job. lack of admin experience is a reason to neutral but not to oposse. i hope the closing beurocrat ways your votes accordinglly. 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Opposes
A few people who oppose keep saying he didnt edit for a month, he has clearly shown that he did and has edited in the month, is there anyway to make this clearer so that people dont get confused? Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, the 'crats should discount opposes based solely on that. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanx. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
