Edit stats from X!'s edit counter as of 04:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC). Monthly stats unavailable because of high edit count. Wikichecker is an alternative. Airplaneman ✈
Username: Tommy2010 User groups: reviewer, rollbacker First edit: Feb 20, 2010 21:41:15 Unique pages edited: 44,439 Average edits per page: 1.53 Live edits: 66,350 Deleted edits: 1,510 Total edits (including deleted): 67,860 Namespace Totals Article 32096 48.37% Talk 533 0.80% User 1574 2.37% User talk 29160 43.95% Wikipedia 2665 4.02% Wikipedia talk 98 0.15% File 27 0.04% File talk 2 0.00% MediaWiki talk 1 0.00% Template 82 0.12% Template talk 62 0.09% Help 18 0.03% Category 29 0.04% Portal 2 0.00% Portal talk 1 0.00% Month counts 2010/02 17 2010/03 5280 2010/04 15573 2010/05 19441 2010/06 9234 2010/07 1620 2010/08 7744 2010/09 6188 2010/10 1253
- Oppose You've listed DYKs and a rapidly-accrued plethora of automated edits as your best contributions to Wikipedia. I see absolutely nothing in this nomination to convince me that you're looking for anything than a level-up. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but until you put forth enough substance to convince me you're here to build an encyclopedia instead of wanting the block button to play whack-a-mole with vandals with more authority, I see no reason to support.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that since it would be a conflict of interest to use administrative tools to gain an advantage in content disputes, almost all administrative work does not directly build content, but rather supports it? It doesn't take writing a featured article to be able to block vandals judiciously; insisting that all prospective administrators be featured article writers or equivalent will result in absolutely no more content being created (since editors generally don't make contributions for the sole purpose of improving their chances at RFA,) but it will result in fewer administrators able to deal with vandalism and other grossly inappropriate editing, ultimately damaging Wikipedia's content.
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- The single most important facet of the Administrator corps is that they not drive away the people who write good content. To that end, I expect administrators to have made more of an effort in that direction than this.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that Tommy2010 has "[driven] away the people who write good content"?
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're not on remotely the same wavelength here. Until you understand why it's not important whether or not Tommy2010 himself has done any such thing, my answer to your question would not make sense to you. Figure that out before badgering me further on my oppose, please. Jclemens ( talk) 05:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that Tommy2010 has "[driven] away the people who write good content"?
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- The single most important facet of the Administrator corps is that they not drive away the people who write good content. To that end, I expect administrators to have made more of an effort in that direction than this.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Your rationale is sound, but you do seem to be trivialising the importance of vandal fighting—if it weren't for the likes of the candidate, the content that can take years to build would be ruined in a few days. That said, I respect your oppose on the grounds of lack of content. Normally, I'd agree, but I decided to make an exception for an otherwise exemplary candidate.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
04:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I promise you it's nothing to do with authority, but more of a "why not"? thing for me. I honestly see it as not a big deal, and more of a way I can help Wikipedia against vandalism. Kind regards, Tom my! 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- re: HJ, Vandal fighting has its place, and I did most of mine using automated tools two years ago. Vandal fighting is excellent, but insufficient, experience for an administrator. DYKs are nice, but also not really sufficient. I don't expect other candidates to not submit their first RfA until they have a
WP:CROWN, as I did, but a balance of vandal fighting and content creation would be acceptable. Is there a GA? How many of the DYK articles were actually Tommy's own creation? The fact that such weren't set forth in the nom betrays at the very least a misunderstanding of how content creation is reckoned...
Jclemens (
talk)
05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi J. I wrote all of them from scratch. I'm most proud of my
Plaza Mayor, Salamanca article because I first saw it when I studied abroad last July.. It was so gorgeous I couldn't believe WP didn't have an article on it, and I created it from searches and the Spanish Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Regarding the vandal fighting, I suppose you have a point, however, it had drastically helped me understand admin related work.
Tom
my!
05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that response. I'll pop back in a few days after you've answered other people's optional questions and whatnot and see if there's sufficient justification for me to rescind my opposition. Jclemens ( talk) 05:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Plaza Mayor, Salamanca is a decent Start-Class article, and I appreciate your contribution to expanding Wikipedia. However, I'd like to see a few more articles written to B-Class and at least 1 Good Article. This is just personal preference, and beureaucrats do not accept this as a reason to oppose. However, I'd just like to see more article writing from any and all RFA candidates. As a side note, your article can be improved by cleaning up your references with Template:Cite web. Thanks-- Vodello ( talk) 06:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi J. I wrote all of them from scratch. I'm most proud of my
Plaza Mayor, Salamanca article because I first saw it when I studied abroad last July.. It was so gorgeous I couldn't believe WP didn't have an article on it, and I created it from searches and the Spanish Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Regarding the vandal fighting, I suppose you have a point, however, it had drastically helped me understand admin related work.
Tom
my!
05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that since it would be a conflict of interest to use administrative tools to gain an advantage in content disputes, almost all administrative work does not directly build content, but rather supports it? It doesn't take writing a featured article to be able to block vandals judiciously; insisting that all prospective administrators be featured article writers or equivalent will result in absolutely no more content being created (since editors generally don't make contributions for the sole purpose of improving their chances at RFA,) but it will result in fewer administrators able to deal with vandalism and other grossly inappropriate editing, ultimately damaging Wikipedia's content.
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit stats from X!'s edit counter as of 04:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC). Monthly stats unavailable because of high edit count. Wikichecker is an alternative. Airplaneman ✈
Username: Tommy2010 User groups: reviewer, rollbacker First edit: Feb 20, 2010 21:41:15 Unique pages edited: 44,439 Average edits per page: 1.53 Live edits: 66,350 Deleted edits: 1,510 Total edits (including deleted): 67,860 Namespace Totals Article 32096 48.37% Talk 533 0.80% User 1574 2.37% User talk 29160 43.95% Wikipedia 2665 4.02% Wikipedia talk 98 0.15% File 27 0.04% File talk 2 0.00% MediaWiki talk 1 0.00% Template 82 0.12% Template talk 62 0.09% Help 18 0.03% Category 29 0.04% Portal 2 0.00% Portal talk 1 0.00% Month counts 2010/02 17 2010/03 5280 2010/04 15573 2010/05 19441 2010/06 9234 2010/07 1620 2010/08 7744 2010/09 6188 2010/10 1253
- Oppose You've listed DYKs and a rapidly-accrued plethora of automated edits as your best contributions to Wikipedia. I see absolutely nothing in this nomination to convince me that you're looking for anything than a level-up. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but until you put forth enough substance to convince me you're here to build an encyclopedia instead of wanting the block button to play whack-a-mole with vandals with more authority, I see no reason to support.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that since it would be a conflict of interest to use administrative tools to gain an advantage in content disputes, almost all administrative work does not directly build content, but rather supports it? It doesn't take writing a featured article to be able to block vandals judiciously; insisting that all prospective administrators be featured article writers or equivalent will result in absolutely no more content being created (since editors generally don't make contributions for the sole purpose of improving their chances at RFA,) but it will result in fewer administrators able to deal with vandalism and other grossly inappropriate editing, ultimately damaging Wikipedia's content.
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- The single most important facet of the Administrator corps is that they not drive away the people who write good content. To that end, I expect administrators to have made more of an effort in that direction than this.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that Tommy2010 has "[driven] away the people who write good content"?
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're not on remotely the same wavelength here. Until you understand why it's not important whether or not Tommy2010 himself has done any such thing, my answer to your question would not make sense to you. Figure that out before badgering me further on my oppose, please. Jclemens ( talk) 05:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that Tommy2010 has "[driven] away the people who write good content"?
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- The single most important facet of the Administrator corps is that they not drive away the people who write good content. To that end, I expect administrators to have made more of an effort in that direction than this.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Your rationale is sound, but you do seem to be trivialising the importance of vandal fighting—if it weren't for the likes of the candidate, the content that can take years to build would be ruined in a few days. That said, I respect your oppose on the grounds of lack of content. Normally, I'd agree, but I decided to make an exception for an otherwise exemplary candidate.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?
04:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I promise you it's nothing to do with authority, but more of a "why not"? thing for me. I honestly see it as not a big deal, and more of a way I can help Wikipedia against vandalism. Kind regards, Tom my! 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- re: HJ, Vandal fighting has its place, and I did most of mine using automated tools two years ago. Vandal fighting is excellent, but insufficient, experience for an administrator. DYKs are nice, but also not really sufficient. I don't expect other candidates to not submit their first RfA until they have a
WP:CROWN, as I did, but a balance of vandal fighting and content creation would be acceptable. Is there a GA? How many of the DYK articles were actually Tommy's own creation? The fact that such weren't set forth in the nom betrays at the very least a misunderstanding of how content creation is reckoned...
Jclemens (
talk)
05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi J. I wrote all of them from scratch. I'm most proud of my
Plaza Mayor, Salamanca article because I first saw it when I studied abroad last July.. It was so gorgeous I couldn't believe WP didn't have an article on it, and I created it from searches and the Spanish Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Regarding the vandal fighting, I suppose you have a point, however, it had drastically helped me understand admin related work.
Tom
my!
05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that response. I'll pop back in a few days after you've answered other people's optional questions and whatnot and see if there's sufficient justification for me to rescind my opposition. Jclemens ( talk) 05:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Plaza Mayor, Salamanca is a decent Start-Class article, and I appreciate your contribution to expanding Wikipedia. However, I'd like to see a few more articles written to B-Class and at least 1 Good Article. This is just personal preference, and beureaucrats do not accept this as a reason to oppose. However, I'd just like to see more article writing from any and all RFA candidates. As a side note, your article can be improved by cleaning up your references with Template:Cite web. Thanks-- Vodello ( talk) 06:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi J. I wrote all of them from scratch. I'm most proud of my
Plaza Mayor, Salamanca article because I first saw it when I studied abroad last July.. It was so gorgeous I couldn't believe WP didn't have an article on it, and I created it from searches and the Spanish Wikipedia. I hope this helps. Regarding the vandal fighting, I suppose you have a point, however, it had drastically helped me understand admin related work.
Tom
my!
05:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You do realize that since it would be a conflict of interest to use administrative tools to gain an advantage in content disputes, almost all administrative work does not directly build content, but rather supports it? It doesn't take writing a featured article to be able to block vandals judiciously; insisting that all prospective administrators be featured article writers or equivalent will result in absolutely no more content being created (since editors generally don't make contributions for the sole purpose of improving their chances at RFA,) but it will result in fewer administrators able to deal with vandalism and other grossly inappropriate editing, ultimately damaging Wikipedia's content.
Peter Karlsen (
talk)
04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)