Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moralis
Mathbot stats[edit]
Go back to see caveats or to check another user.
User:Moralis
run at Thu Apr 12 16:32:46 2007 GMT
Image: 1
Mainspace 301
Talk: 76
Template: 6
User talk: 257
User: 27
Wikipedia talk: 10
Wikipedia: 82
avg edits per page 1.59
earliest 18:24, 15 October 2005
number of unique pages 478
total 760
2005/10 7
2005/11 0
2005/12 0
2006/1 0
2006/2 0
2006/3 0
2006/4 0
2006/5 0
2006/6 0
2006/7 2
2006/8 0
2006/9 0
2006/10 7
2006/11 82
2006/12 291
2007/1 5
2007/2 0
2007/3 192
2007/4 174
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
26 The Black Parade
11 Colin McRae Rally
6 Portugal
5 Myofibril
4 Iraklis
4 Neopets
4 Star Wars MUSH
4 DeLand High School
4 Sammamish High School
4 Mitt Romney
3 Puerto Rico
3 Carlos Latuff
3 Captain Falcon
2 Mike Dirnt
2 Muddy Waters
Talk:
27 The Black Parade
4 Sammamish High School
3 The Black Parade/Neutrality of Article in Dispute (April, 2007)
3 Antisemitism
3 1966-67 NHL season
3 Colin McRae Rally
2 John Osteen
2 Therapy cap
2 American Revolutionary War
2 Antioxidant
2 Kurt Vonnegut
Template:
4 Houston Rockets
User:
13 Moralis
6 Moralis/monobook.js
2 AmiDaniel/VP/Approval
2 Caper13
User talk:
8 Moralis
5 75.19.145.86
5 209.180.218.129
5 Ararat arev
4 TigranTheGreat
3 24.147.175.207
3 81.77.19.24
3 71.196.154.124
3 69.155.154.38
3 DenisDiderot
3 72.255.116.109
3 69.152.139.139
3 Dahn
2 68.148.133.121
2 68.104.119.175
Wikipedia:
24 Administrator intervention against vandalism
9 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 I Ain't Been Shot, Mum!
6 Requests for adminship/Moralis
4 WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading
3 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-06 Colin Cowherd
3 Requests for page protection
3 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-30 The Freechild Project
3 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
3 Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals
2 Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)
2 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07 The anarchy battlefield
2 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Antioxidant
2 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 The Black Parade
Wikipedia talk:
3 Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 I Ain't Been Shot, Mum!/Mediator Directed Discussion
3 Candidates and elections
2 WikiProject My Chemical Romance
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot.
Based directly on these URLs: [1]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis[edit]
Two things; First: User:Thebainer removed vote tallies from all RfAs active. Some of them have had the numbers restored, though not this RfA. Subsequent to that, and with the blessing of the nominee, I refactored this RfA removing support/oppose/neutral sections and chronologically sequencing the comments by people.
Second: To date [1], all of the people in opposition to this nominee are basing their opposition solely on editcountitis and/or timeitis. Reality; user has been affiliated with the project for 2.5 years. His edit counts are not high, but this does not speak to the candidate's trustworthiness. Given the recent willingness of bureaucrats to disregard some votes based on certain grounds, I'd like to see the bureaucrats have the courage to ignore the opposes to this RfA that are based solely on editcountitis/timeitis considerations. --Durin 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Deep breath) As one of the many users who cited a concern about the user's experience, I don't understand when that stopped being a legitimate reason to oppose an RFA candidate. Most unsuccessful RFAs have some people opposing because of inexperience overall or in a particular namespace. Durin is welcome to disagree with my opinion, but I think he is trying to deligitimize it, and I don't think that's right. YechielMan 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- These are not "come back with 10,000 edits" oppose votes. In the case of an editor who has less than 1000 edits on an account, oppose votes based on edit count are meaningful. They convey the idea that the breadth of contributions is insufficient for the purpose of assessing what the candidate would do with administrative tools. Thus, such a vote does speak to the level of trust the community has in the candidate. Time invested is likewise an important factor. An editor who has only invested a month or two in an account is less likely to care about the eventual reputation of that account; the number of editors who will try to game the system by acting nice for two months, and then go haywire, is much lower than the number of editors who would be willing to spend a year under the radar. Both types are rare, but not nonexistent. I don't personally question the good faith of Moralis, nor have I voted in his RfA, but these are valid points to make. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with both YechielMan and Dekimasu. I can't "trust" someone with <100 edits to Wikipedia space. That's strong grounds for an oppose !vote. Deriding that as "opposition solely on editcountitis" is demeaning and unfair. I don't care about someone 'serving their time' before 'deserving' becoming an admin. I think carefully before responding to RfAs. You can disagree with me with my pleasure (I've shown often enough that I listen to disagreement and will change my mind in response to a good argument); but don't denigrate my opinion. --Dweller 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The user has been here for 2.5 years. How much experience do you want him to have, five years? You're edit counting. Pure and simple. How many edits a person has says NOTHING about their knowledge of policy. I could make 100 trivial copyedits to wikipedia space pages. That says NOTHING about my understanding of policies, only perhaps my understanding of spelling and grammar. Edit counts are MEANINGLESS. I urge you to actually review the candidate's contributions and see what he's actually said or added or removed from an article. THAT matters, not whether he changed a comma to a period, or a "cant" to a "can't". --Durin 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- And yet there are four months in those "2.5 years" where Moralis had edited more than a handful of times, and those aren't consecutive. Depending on how it's counted, Moralis could have been editing for 2.5 years, 7 months, 4 months, or 6 weeks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- And as he's noted, he's often edited from an IP, not logged in. Judge the candidate not on the number of edits, or how often they edit. Judge them on the CONTENT of their edits. Please, review his edits not his edit count. --Durin 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am holding on to what I said a while ago on experience opposes. I do agree that people should look at more than just the edit count statistics when commenting on users RfA, but I still think experience should be looked at in RfA and is not "irrelevant". Anyway whatever the case, good practice should be maintained on talk pages and RfA's. Camaron1 | Chris 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please show me where the number and/or frequency of edits gives any indication of the nominees knowledge of policy and guidelines? --Durin 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The more time a user spends editing Wikipedia, the more knowledge they are likely to have on policies and guidelines, as users generally need to refer to and get told to refer to policies and guidelines the more they contribute or get involved. Obviously that is not a perfect theory, people who edit typos or use the preview button less will have more edits, but will not necessarily have more experience editing. Hence, experience is only a guideline, but still one that can looked at. Camaron1 | Chris 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except, counting edits or frequency of edits gives zero indication of familiarity of policy. It's like wondering how good a whopper with cheese tastes by looking at the coloring of the packaging. --Durin 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well they are linked, so they can give an indication. Like, I have said before, there is and probably never will be a single perfect measure on if somebody should be an admin or not, and which measures are better than others are always going to be controversial. Hence, why everyone (mostly) is entitled to their opinion if they think it is valid, that means I am not going to argue over it. Camaron1 | Chris 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- HOW are they linked? There's no connection that I can see. How is a candidate with 1000 edits and 100 Wikipedia space edits more qualified than someone with 900 and 50 respectively? --Durin 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Having a substantial edit history is a necessary precondition to allowing users to see whether a user has a good understanding of policy. The quality and type of edits is far more important to that judgment than their absolute abundance, but without some history of non-trivial contributions there is nothing to judge. (This is a comment about edit counts in general, and not about Moralis in particular, who I have not looked at.) Dragons flight 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- HOW are they linked? There's no connection that I can see. How is a candidate with 1000 edits and 100 Wikipedia space edits more qualified than someone with 900 and 50 respectively? --Durin 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well they are linked, so they can give an indication. Like, I have said before, there is and probably never will be a single perfect measure on if somebody should be an admin or not, and which measures are better than others are always going to be controversial. Hence, why everyone (mostly) is entitled to their opinion if they think it is valid, that means I am not going to argue over it. Camaron1 | Chris 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except, counting edits or frequency of edits gives zero indication of familiarity of policy. It's like wondering how good a whopper with cheese tastes by looking at the coloring of the packaging. --Durin 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- The more time a user spends editing Wikipedia, the more knowledge they are likely to have on policies and guidelines, as users generally need to refer to and get told to refer to policies and guidelines the more they contribute or get involved. Obviously that is not a perfect theory, people who edit typos or use the preview button less will have more edits, but will not necessarily have more experience editing. Hence, experience is only a guideline, but still one that can looked at. Camaron1 | Chris 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please show me where the number and/or frequency of edits gives any indication of the nominees knowledge of policy and guidelines? --Durin 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am holding on to what I said a while ago on experience opposes. I do agree that people should look at more than just the edit count statistics when commenting on users RfA, but I still think experience should be looked at in RfA and is not "irrelevant". Anyway whatever the case, good practice should be maintained on talk pages and RfA's. Camaron1 | Chris 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- And as he's noted, he's often edited from an IP, not logged in. Judge the candidate not on the number of edits, or how often they edit. Judge them on the CONTENT of their edits. Please, review his edits not his edit count. --Durin 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- And yet there are four months in those "2.5 years" where Moralis had edited more than a handful of times, and those aren't consecutive. Depending on how it's counted, Moralis could have been editing for 2.5 years, 7 months, 4 months, or 6 weeks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- de-indent One edit...just one...can show more understanding of policy and guidelines than 100 or even 1000. --Durin 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't disagree with you there. If User A commits vandalism a 1000 times, and User B edits an article in a good way just once, then User B has shown a better understanding of policy. However it is User A which has shown more clearly, his/her attitude to policy, while User B would be a bit of a mystery until he/she made more edits. It can be looked at either way. Camaron1 | Chris 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious... have any b'crats actually said they will close this thing? Or future ones? --W.marsh 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Redux implied that he would like the experience of closing one in this format on WT:RFA. I don't have an exact link... -- nae'blis 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redux hasn't edited in five days. I doubt that's the reason it's delayed. --Durin 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)