Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Somitho

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Somitho[edit]

Final (11/23/3) ended 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Somitho (talk · contribs) - Somitho has been editing Wikipedia since September 2005, and has since demonstrated himself to be a good person. In addition to actually working on articles, he is actively involved in RFA, AFD, the Mediation Cabal, and warning vandals. Through private means, Somitho has told me that as an administrator, he would deal mostly with the CSD and AFD backlog (which makes sense, since his contribution history indicates he is actively involved). Furthermore, his history of edits seems to indicate no major problems, other than a light controversy over the closure of an RFB (in his defense, he says he was advised by many admins to close it), as well as a subpaging of an essay without permission (he thought he was given permission, but in any case the situation was resolved through email). Most importantly, I do not see any problem with him becoming an administrator. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination, I accept.Somitho 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to correct one thing above, I have been here since July 2004 under the the username Soms. I have mostly lurked around. I am hoping that the community chooses to trust me, and not get too much editcountitis. Yes I do have a fairly small amount of edits, however in my defense I am familiar with policy; and do see an actual need for the tools. It is something I have been kicking myself over for sometime, and while I could wait to gain a few more edits; I see no need for that myself, as it would not change much. I will be of course, open to sensible recall. I would also be happy to answer any and all questions anyone may have.
I withdraw this RfA, I feel I am quite ready to take the next step and put the tools to use. It seems part of the community disagrees with me. The amount of personal attacks left for me on IRC(Not related to [User:Flameviper]) have continued. I do want to state that edits to not make a person, and I thank those who have been able to recognize that. I also want to thank those who have expressed support, but decided to oppose as they did not know me well enough to support. Thank you, Somitho 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I see myself getting involved with WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:CSD; while you have not seen me participate a great deal submitting AFD's, or posting on AIV; we do have a backlog and lurking around; I have gained knowledge of policy and am sure I would be of great help clearing backlogs.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am particularly pleased with all of my contributions, and tend to work on a test wiki to iron out my articles before submission. Right now I am working on BGP on my test wiki, and will be particularly pleased with myself once I complete it.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Stress is something that exists everywhere, and I deal with considerably on a day to day basis. So I don't sweat too much stuff on wiki. However if I had to point out a particular conflict, I would have to say Ryulong's recent RfA caused a bit of stress. However dealing with stress, is something I am good at. I tend to back away from the computer if it truly upsets me; but just taking a deep breath, and trying to see where the user is coming from tends to help. Looking at things from both sides before replying is essential to maintaining a neutral point of view.

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I believe WP:IAR means just use common sense. If a policy prevents you from improving wikipedia, then ignore it. That doesn't mean run around and ignore all rules, but be selective when ignoring one. Second, you should be ready to immediately explain your reasoning for ignoring the policy. WP:SNOW should be applied sparingly, when a user has received no support toward the consensus, and does not have any chance of gaining any support.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: No, there would not be a case I can think of personally where punitive blocks need to be applied.


General comments


Discussion

Support

  1. Support: (hope I'm not jumping the gun here, never top-posted on an RFA before) this user is helpful and courteous and willing to take constructive criticism. I happen to know that his real-life job entails a great deal of responsibility and therefore I have no worries about his steady hand on the mop. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, He's a good editor and a good IRCer, I can't find how any of his recent behaviour has been even remotely offencive. Also he apologised, so it doesn't really matter either way. T. Kewl the First 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per WP:NCR. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 14:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Switch to neutral[reply]
  3. Support Soms is a good guy. I believe the issue with Chacor was the product of misunderstanding constructive criticism. It certainly does not look like a personal attack to me. I'm sure he'll use this power for the good of us all. rxKaffee 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. of course GeorgeMoney (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I don't see that the alleged "ad hominem attack" against User:Chacor was particularly serious, and as for the editcount, that shouldn't be an issue. User clearly has ample experience of AfDs and other WP namespace tasks, and adequate awareness of policy. Obsession with high editcounts is a huge problem on RfAs; simply quoting a user's editcount is not, in itself, a reason to oppose. Walton monarchist89 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Despite the low number of actual edits, I believe that Soms' knowledge of policy and procedure, as well as his above-stated willingness to help with backlogs, makes up for this; with the tools you may see him become more active as he helps to clear these. The fact that he works on articles off-wiki will also contribute to his low count, but does not take anything away from the quality of his contributions. As the most important matter, whether he will abuse the tools or not, I can say with 100% conviction that this man will not give anyone a reason to doubt whether or not he should have them; a combination of the responsibilities he is entrusted with in his RL job and his own character and actions gives no room for doubt. — Editor at Large(speak) 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as nominator who clumsily forgot to do "support per nom" earlier in the RFA. He may have a low number of edits and he may have not spent much time here, though he seems to know the ropes and aims to resolve whatever conflict he gets in. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondance2607 (talk • contribs) — Moondance2607 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  9. Support I trust this user with the tools enough myself after having spoken with him for a bit and seeing his understanding of policy. It seems unlikely that this RFA will pass due to the multitudes of people who don't know him, but just thought I'd put that out there. Cowman109Talk 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Cowman109, I have spoken to him in IRC before and he has more understanding of policy than many admins, even though he has very few edits, forgot edit count in this case. Jaranda wat's sup 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. Has good understanding of policy, unlikely to abuse admin tools. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

  1. NO, per this ad hominem attack on me (which was crossposted! to WP:RFA). Yes, the user apologised, but that is not conduct becoming of an admin. – Chacor 13:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chacor, I believe I had apologized and did not mean it as a personal attack. If you took it as such, then I do apologize once again. Are you stating that admins are not allowed to say something and have it misunderstood, then apologize for it, and have it held against them? Somitho 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the subsequent responses on both pages you'll find that I'm not alone in thinking it was a personal attack. – Chacor 13:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're corrrect, you're not alone in mis-understanding what I had meant to say. This is why I had apologized. If I had meant it as a personal attack, I would have come out and said so; and then apologized for attacking you. Somitho 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outside observer who doesn't know either party, I'm puzzled that this was interpreted as a personal attack. It doesn't even strike me as particularly insensitive, just someone calling as he sees it. I'm a bit concerned that people will become afraid to make well-founded objections from fear of being accused of personal attacks (what lawyers call a "chilling effect" on speech). Maybe there's some background to the story that I don't know. Raymond Arritt 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - 352 total edits ... and according to the edit counter tool [1], while yes, this user has been here since September of 2005, there were zero edits between November of 2005 and November of 2006. So really, he/she only has two months of experience. Needs more time ... --BigDT 13:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidate gives a prior username as well, but the tool returns a grand total of 1 edit under that username. (EDIT: see Special:Contributions/Soms) – Chacor 13:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    352 edits? And if what Chacor says above is true (about the one edit on the old account) then it's an oppose. Needs a bit more experience, I think. --Majorly (o rly?) 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn opposition. --Majorly (o rly?) 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd factor at least 1000 more edits, based on IP edits. I will be grep'ing logs and posting diff's later. Somitho 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you don't have to do that, because as I understand it, only the edits that you have made when logged into your account can be considered for the purposes of an RfA. --Kyoko 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ... that isn't really the case. Anyone who participates can consider anything they deem to be important. To use an extreme example, if there were evidence that an admin candidate had vandalized as an IP, most anyone would probably consider that. In this case, though, I agree with you as far as I'm concerned - except in prolific cases, I don't know how much weight I would give to IP contributions. --BigDT 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess what I'm trying to say is that short of resorting to Checkuser (quite unmerited and extreme in this case), we would be unable to verify that a given IP was in fact Somitho. --Kyoko 01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I dont normally oppose based on editcounts, but this is way too low. A decent amount of edits just demonstrate that you have skills to write an article, or to discuss issues with other users. Both of these I find important qualities for an admin. Plus the comment about Chacor was in bad taste and way too recent to forget — Lost(talk) 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lost What happened to AGF? I've never meant it in bad taste, and apologized for it being mis-understood that way. If you reviewed my contributions, you would see I have shown my abilities. Somitho 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I really dont want to get into the discussion about AGF, but upon your insistence I did look through your mainspace contributions and couldn't find much. Perhaps you could yourself elaborate on your answer 2. I did however find a large number of XFD & medcab discussions — Lost(talk) 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to elaborate. Give me a few hours and I will have the article finished. Somitho 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Sorry, but discounting the 16 edits in 2005 on the two accounts, you've only been active for 7 weeks and have 337 edits—of which a total of 73 are to article and arcticle talk pages. Add to that the incident with Chacor from less that two weeks ago, and this is a big no. You simply don't have the track record to evaluate nor the experience to perform the duties. —Doug Bell talk 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Chacor. Good faith is irrelevant; if your comments are so easily misunderstood as a personal attack, that's a problem too. And, of course, lack of experience doesn't help. -Amark moo! 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I just don't feel confident that you have enough experience here to be an admin. The Rambling Man 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Despite the fact that you have been with Wikipedia since 2005, you don't have a significant number of edits under either username. While the term "editcountitis" does appear in RfA discussions, it's simply a fact that administrators have to have experience in contributing to the encyclopedia (the mainspace portion of your edit count) in order to learn how Wikipedia functions; how articles are developed, how disputes arise and are hopefully settled, what is acceptable and what is not, etc. The only way that RfA voters can evaluate a candidate is by looking at their record of edits and following their contributions. Your contributions thus far don't convince me that you have the experience to become an administrator. As a point of comparison, most successful RfA candidates have made several thousand edits, spread across mainspace (articles), article talk pages, Wikipedia ("process" pages like AfD and the page you're reading now), and elsewhere. I suggest that for now you should contribute more to articles, offer your suggestions on article talk pages, and basically do things besides RfA/xFD. Please also be careful with your choice of words, because admins have to maintain a cool head even when stressed, and the tone of your comment did sound rather heated to me. I think you should also do more RC patrol, because dealing with vandalism is one of the major responsibilities for admins, and you seem to have little or no experience in reverting vandalism or warning offenders. Another thing: always try to use edit summaries, because they make it much easier for other people to understand your actions at a glance. I hope you will take this advice to heart, and maybe in the future, I might vote support. --Kyoko 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC), amended 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Editcountitis is not a crime. A long trail of edits and significant time-in-service give us a chance to evaluate an editor's tendencies and general disposition. With such a small sample of edits with which to evaluate Somitho's modus vivendi under this username, no reliable predictions of behavior can be made. A Train take the 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Low edit count, abuse of LURK MOAR, and abuse of operator priveleges elsewhere lead me to conclude that the candidate is definitely not suited to the job. ~ Flameviper Who's a Peach? 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, you, Flameviper, need to not play around on RfA and Wikipedia in general just because you are unhappy about actions taken against you outside of Wikipedia proper. Grow up. Bumm13 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing bureaucrat ought to consider this diff when considering Flameviper's argument. A Train take the 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per lack of activity.--Wizardman 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Wizardman. 1ne 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per all above. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose 352 edits total does not demonstrate sufficient commitment to the project. At certain very low levels of activity, "editcountitis" (normally a pejorative) becomes synonymous with "good common sense." This is such a case. Xoloz 21:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per above, low edits/activity (time), and poor answers to questions. Cbrown1023 talk 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. The low edit count alone is not a reason to disqualify, but it's been only two months, the candidate has little familiarity with deletion policy (where he plans to be active as an admin, and where a username is a must even before you become an admin) or for that matter anything else. I don't doubt he's a "good person" per nom, but it's not enough. YechielMan 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, regretfully. Fair enough, the medcab stuff is good, but I can't support someone who proposes to do things once mopped that they haven't been got involved in beforehand. Would deal with C:CSD and AfD? No speedy deletion warnings left for new users. Either Somitho doesn't have any experience of speedy deletion or hasn't been leaving messages, and I'd prefer to think it's "hasn't been involved" because the alternative is less good. No sign that Somitho has had a go at closing XfDs. Go out and be bold: tag some articles for speedy deletion; close some AfDs. Nothing very bad can happen. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose for inexperience: 63 mainspace edits and he wants to be an admin? I'm also worried about his dealings with FlameViper - an admin should maintain his cool even when provoked. However, I'm certain there's more to the story than I'm seeing, and would only be neutral if that were the only issue. The supposed attack on Chacor is not so much of an issue for me. Argyriou (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose • Per Chacor, but more importantly, per Kyoko. This is something that was explained to me on my own RFA, and I agree with it. The encyclopedia is here first and foremost, and most of the time, you are dealing with article writers. To truly empathise with and gain respect from these editors, you should have some established contributions under your belt. Sorry Somitho, this isn't a personal choice, this is a choice of what's best for Wikipedia, and I don't feel at the current juncture you would work well as an administrator here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Kyoko. WjBscribe 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, low visible contribution level. Mallanox 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per everyone Arfan (Talk) 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Kyoko and Chacor. Lacks of edits in the mainspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should have at least some contributions to articles. I'm sorry but its too early and I feel its not time yet. Terence Ong 10:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose This is the most bizarre RfA I have ever seen. I can't understand how the candidate has managed to get 11 supporters. And I don't understand how the supporters can be sure the candidate understands policy and has the experience required of admins with only 355 edits over the last three months. I'm truly shocked by this RfA. Is this an IRC RfA? Usually, candidates with edits less than 2,000 are quickly SNOWed. Where is the "ample experience of AfDs and other WP namespace tasks, and adequate awareness of policy"? I don't consider 156 WP edits "ample" or "adequate" and most of the AfDs I looked at were "per nom" or "per X" rather than unique application of policy. Messedrocker states the candidate "has been editing Wikipedia since September 2005" yet ignores that during 14 of those 16-17 months, Somitho made a grand total of fifteen edits. I really dislike seeing people who don't meet basic community standards for RfA nominated for adminship. It doesn't seem fair on the candidate to set them up like that. Also, with regard to the candidate's response to Lost: "Give me a few hours and I will have the article finished"...um...we shouldn't have to wait, stuff like that should be done well before you even consider accepting an RfA nomination. I feel like I've stepped into the middle of a The Twilight Zone episode...Sarah 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral: Not active enough for me to support you as an admin right now (I think that administrators need to be fairly active—200-300 edits/month—to know how to behave appropriately in all the situations that arise or that they may fall into). However, in contrast to Chacor, I think you handled that situation well, with a swift explanation and apology, which to me is a positive for support as an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Lack of activity on-wiki concerns me. Okay editor, but 350 edits isn't experienced enough for me. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. People say "LURK MOAR" but they never say "EDIT LESS".
    It should be noted that this edit was made by User:Flameviper Somitho 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Remaining Neutral User has excellent ambition, but he doesn't prove knowledge of process yet. In a few months with more active editing, definitely. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 05:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Somitho&oldid=1088715464"