Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MacMed
Stats from Edit Counter Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
User groups: rollbacker First edit: May 12, 2009 23:41:40 Unique articles edited: 677 Average edits per page: 2.11 Total edits (including deleted): 1,428 Deleted edits: 107 Live edits: 1,321 Namespace totals Article 407 30.81% Talk 90 6.81% User 156 11.81% User talk 315 23.85% Wikipedia 241 18.24% Wikipedia talk 50 3.79% File 9 0.68% Template 26 1.97% Template talk 18 1.36% Category 1 0.08% Portal 8 0.61% Month counts 2009/05 537 2009/06 588 2009/07 74 2009/08 122 Logs Accounts created: 2 Pages patrolled: 25 Files uploaded: 4 Top edited articles Article * 32 - Laser_Ghost * 28 - The_Marshall_Mathers_LP * 17 - Ralph_Bakshi * 11 - Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles * 8 - Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri * 5 - IBM * 4 - 2009_Iranian_election_protests * 4 - The_Increment * 4 - Penn_High_School * 4 - Taliban Talk * 7 - The_Chronicles_of_Riddick:_Escape_from_Butcher_Bay... * 6 - List_of_languages_by_writing_system * 4 - The_Chronicles_of_Riddick:_Escape_from_Butcher_Bay * 4 - The_Marshall_Mathers_LP * 4 - Zidovudine * 3 - Felipe_Solís_Olguín * 3 - Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri * 3 - Laser_Ghost * 2 - Little_Richard * 2 - Sambhaji_Brigade User * 56 - MacMed * 17 - MacMed/test * 11 - MacMed/monobook.js * 9 - MacMed/Mediationnote * 9 - MacMed/Userboxes * 8 - MacMed/Sandbox01 * 7 - MacMed/Dragon_Ball_Z_Review * 6 - MacMed/Mediation_Notes * 5 - Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests * 4 - MacMed/mediationbar User talk * 19 - MacMed * 11 - MacMed/test * 11 - MacMed/afc_denied * 6 - GamerPro64 * 4 - PhilKnight * 4 - Supersentai * 4 - The_Transhumanist * 4 - SriMesh * 4 - Renaissancee * 4 - Gulumbit Wikipedia * 21 - In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates * 17 - Articles_for_creation/Redirects * 11 - WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment/Requests * 7 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention * 6 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 6 - WikiProject_Video_games/Newsletter/draft * 5 - Requests_for_adminship/MacMed * 5 - Requests_for_page_protection * 4 - Images_for_upload * 4 - Good_article_nominations Wikipedia talk * 13 - Edit_filter * 3 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-06-24/Sambhaji_Brigade * 3 - WikiProject_Articles_for_creation * 2 - WikiProject_Video_games/Newsletter * 2 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage * 2 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-03/Little_Richard * 2 - Articles_for_creation/Ryan_Ross * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Dr._Henry_A._Wise_Jr. * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Frank_Tompa * 1 - Articles_for_creation/Ombrosa,_Lycée_Multilangue_... File * 5 - SMACx-DiploScreenshot1.jpg * 1 - Laser_ghost.jpg * 1 - Laser_ghost_screenshot.jpg * 1 - DominicanRepublicOMC.png * 1 - SMACX_Diplo.jpg Template * 16 - Afc_decline * 5 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2 * 2 - Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 * 2 - Afc_decline/doc * 1 - WikiProject_Rugby_union Template talk * 17 - Did_you_know * 1 - In_the_news Category * 1 - AfC_submissions_by_reviewer/MacMed Portal * 2 - Current_events/Canada/News_Feed/Archive/GM_talk_ex... * 1 - Current_events/2009_June_29 * 1 - Current_events/Canada/Lead_Story * 1 - Current_events/2009_June_30 * 1 - Current_events/2009_July_1 * 1 - Current_events/2009_July_13 * 1 - Current_events/2009_July_3
Discussion removed from main page
[edit]- Interesting. That editor had over twice the experience of this candidate, including a lot more admin-related-area edits, and you couldn't support that one, for the reason "I just haven't seen enough discussion and involvement in admin-related areas from Gordonrox24 to demonstrate that he knows how everything works or has clue"... Tan | 39 17:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I judge each candidate individually. Numbers don't matter as much as the editor having clue and demonstrating such by his or her edits. With that candidate, there weren't enough edits that demonstrated he knew how everything worked. With MacMed, he's convinced me that he does. hmwitht 17:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that it ultimately comes down to the perceived level of clue. Some editors have/show it with less edits than others. It's different for every editor. Some take years; some only take a month. hmwitht 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- But that's not the reasoning you used. You couldn't support one due to a lack of "discussion and involvement in admin-related areas", and then support one who has significantly less discussion and involvement in said areas. I'm not making any of this up or putting words in your mouth; I'm just showing you the quite obvious contradiction based on your quotes. You are, of course, entitled to !vote however you want. I often see this happen on RfA, and wonder just how much research goes into each candidate, or if people !vote depending on how their own personal day happens to be developing. Tan | 39 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've read both comments several times, and I'm not seeing the contradiction. Both mention "clue", which = sign of trustworthiness. Someone can make 2k contribs to admin/discussion related areas and be clueless as ever, or make 300 intelligent and responsible edits that cause you to see good admin potential. JamieS93 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The !vote on this page did not mention clue. However, I didn't really mean for this to escalate this much as for third parties to step in and feel the need to comment. Let's just let it rest; take it to a talk page if you want to continue. Tan | 39 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say the words "clue" here, but I felt that it was implied in my having trust... because a user gains my trust by having clue (among other things). I previously created user:hmwith/rfa to explain my thorough reasoning. Also, note that I didn't oppose in the RfA that you linked. Rather, I was neutral. I didn't say that he wouldn't be okay with the job, his answers and contribs just did not convince me that he had a certain amount of knowledge that I expect. MacMed has convinced me that he does. I'm not sure why another user's RfA is being discussed here, but I'll willing to expand further on a talk page if requested. hmwitht 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was out of line. While I still see a contradiction, I probably should have just approached you on your user page, if I felt the need. Anyone object to my removing all this to the RfA talk page? Tan | 39 21:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have no issue with it being moved to the talk page. However, I still can't see the contradiction. Just because two users have a similar edit count does not mean that both are at the same level. Candidates should be judged individually, not by numbers. hmwitht 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was out of line. While I still see a contradiction, I probably should have just approached you on your user page, if I felt the need. Anyone object to my removing all this to the RfA talk page? Tan | 39 21:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say the words "clue" here, but I felt that it was implied in my having trust... because a user gains my trust by having clue (among other things). I previously created user:hmwith/rfa to explain my thorough reasoning. Also, note that I didn't oppose in the RfA that you linked. Rather, I was neutral. I didn't say that he wouldn't be okay with the job, his answers and contribs just did not convince me that he had a certain amount of knowledge that I expect. MacMed has convinced me that he does. I'm not sure why another user's RfA is being discussed here, but I'll willing to expand further on a talk page if requested. hmwitht 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The !vote on this page did not mention clue. However, I didn't really mean for this to escalate this much as for third parties to step in and feel the need to comment. Let's just let it rest; take it to a talk page if you want to continue. Tan | 39 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've read both comments several times, and I'm not seeing the contradiction. Both mention "clue", which = sign of trustworthiness. Someone can make 2k contribs to admin/discussion related areas and be clueless as ever, or make 300 intelligent and responsible edits that cause you to see good admin potential. JamieS93 18:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- But that's not the reasoning you used. You couldn't support one due to a lack of "discussion and involvement in admin-related areas", and then support one who has significantly less discussion and involvement in said areas. I'm not making any of this up or putting words in your mouth; I'm just showing you the quite obvious contradiction based on your quotes. You are, of course, entitled to !vote however you want. I often see this happen on RfA, and wonder just how much research goes into each candidate, or if people !vote depending on how their own personal day happens to be developing. Tan | 39 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that it ultimately comes down to the perceived level of clue. Some editors have/show it with less edits than others. It's different for every editor. Some take years; some only take a month. hmwitht 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Damn you, hmwith, for expressing an opinion. What do you think this is? You know what? Don't even answer that question!! Lara 21:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- My, that was an unpleasant surprise on Lara's page. Keepscases (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Visiting Lara's talk page at any point in time is a risky endeavor. hmwitht 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- My, that was an unpleasant surprise on Lara's page. Keepscases (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I judge each candidate individually. Numbers don't matter as much as the editor having clue and demonstrating such by his or her edits. With that candidate, there weren't enough edits that demonstrated he knew how everything worked. With MacMed, he's convinced me that he does. hmwitht 17:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. That editor had over twice the experience of this candidate, including a lot more admin-related-area edits, and you couldn't support that one, for the reason "I just haven't seen enough discussion and involvement in admin-related areas from Gordonrox24 to demonstrate that he knows how everything works or has clue"... Tan | 39 17:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)