Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 11 July 2009

Skomorokh

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (124/3/1); Scheduled to end 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Skomorokh (talk · contribs)

Instead of a userpage, by an editor too lazy to maintain one

Hail, editors.

I registered this account in 2006 to exploit the famed "watchlist" feature I had heard so much about, without ever intending to make an edit; three years, 40k edits, and 13,717 pages watched later, I am here to request administrator access.

I've written perhaps a hundred articles from scratch, the most recent of which have been deemed sufficiently harmless or boring not to merit review. As an accomplished MMORPGist, I have also racked up a few dozen points at WP:DYK (some samples: a, b, c, d). Audited content contributions for which I am the primary guilty party are listed at the vanity bar; other articles significantly contributed to include MJK (), Manifesto of the Sixteen (), RATM (), JHo disco ().

At one point back in the hazy mists of 2007, I almost decided to {{dramatire}} over an article I had written (in the utter conviction that it would improve the encyclopaedia and make the world a better place) that was perfectly correctly deleted as an unreferenced A7. Seeing the error of may ways and the limitations of AGF, I became a strict verificationist. This inclination to write to the letter of the sources has tended to attract the ire of all sorts of colourful characters who take umbrage when the weighted POV of the references conflicts with their own, and denounce yours truly as a white supremacist/anarcho-homosexualist/deviant/Neo-Nazi/bleeding heart/neoconservative/deconstructionist/Randroid, but I have tried to make up for it by owning up when in the wrong and having the memory and grudge-retention of a mentally deficient goldfish. I have yet to manage to get myself banned, blocked, or dragged across the coals at WP:REIGNOFTERROR. One can but aspire.

As an eventualist and exopedian by inclination, my substantive initiatives in Misplaced Pages space amount to an essay no-one agrees with, an anti-vandalism watchlist no-one watches and a set of sourcing guidelines no-one follows, as well as a spate of hit-and-run contributions to policy discussions. True to name, I have sporadically contributed in a number of maintenance areas (acronym soup: WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:BLPN, CAT:RESCUE, WP:VITAL, WP:RD, WP:CSD, WP:HD, WP:AIN, WP:AFD, WP:GCE, most recently WP:RANDWATCH and most intensively WP:ATF) without ever getting too entrenched. That said, being long in the tooth and increasingly afflicted by namespace drift, I would like to remain effective in acting as an uninvolved arbiter (for those of you whose NONEED trigger finger is itching, I submit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as recent requests for administrator intervention). Should this request succeed, I don't intend on being a terribly active administrator, nor to retain tenure as a divine right, but I do pledge to try to uphold the free and open principles the encyclopaedia was co-founded on. Rotten fruit at the ready, take aim. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

1. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A:

Question from user:Will Beback

2. In the "Neutral" section below some editors are rasiing issues concerning your editing and interactions surrounding Stormfront (website). You are by far the largest contributor to the article and its talk page. There was once an effort by Stormfront editors to "take over" Misplaced Pages and the editors there once posted a listing of Jewish Misplaced Pages editors to target, so there is an unusual relationship between the two projects. Could you please describe your interest in this topic and what you see as its particular challenges? Could you also explain your reasoning behind this edit, which appears to be unsourced original research?   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A: Cheers for the question, Will. Starting from the top, I was unaware of the attempted takeover or targeting of Jewish editors issues. I knew the website was controversial, which was my sole reason for choosing to try to take it to GA after being amazed that Giggy dragged the 4chan article kicking and screaming to FA. I don't have any real interest in the topic area in general; American politics bore me to tears. I have nothing against white people, and I'm sure if instead of editing Misplaced Pages I had friends, several of them would be white etc. As for this edit, it is neither unsourced nor original research, but, as it says, a summary of the Character section of the article; I follow the convention of not cluttering lead sections with redundant citations. I've kept this brief so feel free to follow up. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

3. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Misplaced Pages? That is, what do you think an ideal Misplaced Pages would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A:

4. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.

A:

Additional Questions from FASTILY

5. Have you experienced any sort of conflicts over editing or experienced any sort of situation that has caused you stress? How will you deal with such situations in the future (especially from a sysop's point of view)?

A: I don't generally care enough about any specific pages to get stressed about them; I find that there is always another article of equal interest/importance no-one is warring over, and that most of the time you can return to the scene of a heated conflict a few weeks later and get back to work. The episode surrounding the Stormfront (website) article discussed in the Neutral section did feel like taking crazy pills, but that to a large degree had to do with my unorthodox editing approach and cultural unfamiliarity. One of the commenters below mentions that my contributions to AfD have been limited, but that has only been the case for the past year or so, as it was the one area I did used to get quite frustrated at. I don't intend on getting involved in any stressful situations as an administrator; it seems to me that raising such issues at a well-monitored forum in most cases attracts sufficient uninvolved editors for the administrator protagonists to step back.  Skomorokh  12:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

6. What administrative areas of the project do you plan to partake in and why?

A: Judging from past experiences, predicting that would largely be futile. One thing I learned from CSD/AfD is that there are a vast amount of rescuable articles (i.e. those for which satisfactory reliable coverage exists) that never get rescued, so I would anticipate salvaging worthy content from deleted revisions. I am also interested in intervening in third-party disputes as an uninvolved editor, though I can't promise that this will be a main focus. On the whole, I plan on continuing as usual, monitoring watchlisted pages and slowly dragging articles up to standards while contributing wherever else piques my interest.  Skomorokh  12:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

7. An IP address editor vandalizes a page. You revert the edit and the IP proceeds to vandalize your userpage and it's subpages several times with you reverting the edits each time. Would you report the IP to Administrator intervention against vandalism or would you consider that to be a conflict of interest and simply proceed to block the IP yourself?

A:

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

8a. What policy areas have you contributed to?

A.

8b. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?

A.

8c. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?

A.

8d. Our ubiquitous template {{unref}} says that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"; to your mind, must the unsourced material be challenged (with a {{fact}}, say) first before removal and after removal is re-addition of the still unsourced material disruptive and hence blockable?

A.

Question from user:Peter Damian

9 I would welcome someone with even a limited philosophical training as an administrator, however I do have a concern about the position you have taken on the Ayn Rand related articles. While you are not one of the extreme objectivists who make life difficult on those articles (and whose activities caused me to give up), it seems to me that you have both sympathies for Rand's point of view, and possibly some regard for her standing as a 'philosopher'. I am sure there was an occasion when you defended an IP account (since banned for 6 months by order of Arbcom) who had been making life a misery for all the neutrally-minded editors (I can't find the diff - could you comment whether this is true). From your comments, you also are involved in Objectivist websites - is that true?

A Ciao Peter, thanks for the questions. As a skeptic, non-cognitivist and nominalist I have little in common with Objectivists philosophically, nor do I participate in Objectivist websites (other than to observe the Misplaced Pages-related fallout from the Valliant controversy). You are correct in saying that I defended the right of the IP in question to edit here, (though I don't believe ArbCom ever ruled on the issue). The situation was disruptive, yes, but the editor exhibited a greater familiarity with the topics and the literature than any others, and the article was improving because of it. Once they started edit-warring against consensus and ranting in edit summaries, I warned them and subsequently proposed the wholesale removal of PARC as a reference. I did not consider the question of whether or not Rand ought to be described as a philosopher an important one, as I don't attach a lot of weight to that term. A note of caution: I don't intend on contributing significantly to philosophy articles—as I'm sure you're aware it's a topic area very poorly covered by the encyclopaedia and difficult to work on collaboratively. Please feel free to follow-up if I have misrepresented the past in my answer or if there's anything else you are wondering about. Regards,  Skomorokh  13:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears the mystery up. Although I can't say I agree with you that the article was improving in the slightest, having carefully studied the edits in question. But another question: do you have any ideas about improving the environment for editors with proper philosophical training? As you must be aware, these mostly work together in a collaborative way (I work well with KD, for example, even though he was trained in the 'continental' variety). The problems are those without training who imagine that training is not needed, and whose tendentiousness is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject. Do you agree? If so, how would you improve the lot of those working in this area? Peter Damian (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Karbinski

10. If you came accross an article discussion where user Peter Damian was participating, would you Assume Good Faith for user Peter Damian? If so, why?

A:

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

11. Could you explain why you choose not have a link to your talk page in your signature? As, it makes communication a slight hassle, would you be open to changing your signature so that some part of it links direct to your talk page?

A: Sure, no problem. The reasons I linked only to my username were aesthetic minimalism and the ease of navigation from user to user talk. Cheers,  Skomorokh  18:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Skomorokh: Skomorokh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Skomorokh can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Skomorokh before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

• Note of caution: I intend to take the novel approach of taking optional questions as actually optional, and in the interests of focused and productive discussion am inclined not to answer those delivered in boilerplate agree-with-my-personal-crusade-or-else form. On another note, if you are inclined to oppose, please feel free to be as frank and forthright as you want; I am not a doe-eyed six month old huggler and could probably use an ego-bruising. Personal attacks and vicious invective will probably be deemed disruptive and blockworthy here, but are more than welcome at my talkpage. Those who comment below in free verse will be properly regarded as effete pomo degenerates and will likely be suspected of having communist sympathies. Regards,  Skomorokh  13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Where are the standard questions?--Rockfang (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Answered in the nomination statement, hopefully. If I've overlooked something let me know. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I noticed that too, but the self-nom statement seems fine enough. Bravo for thinking outside the box. :-) Apparently a few editors, 88 to be exact, don't miss those lovely three questions. JamieS93 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats on WP:100! –Juliancolton |  20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Every time I've encountered Skomorokh I've been impressed. Cheers, TFOWR 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Didn't think I'd see the day! Outstanding, detailed, and careful content editor, unreservedly one of our better ones. I've fulfilled many-a-request for admin help for Skomorokh (userfying deleted pages for him to work and improve and resubmit, for example) over the months. I've even told him to run for adminship on at least one occasion. I'm glad you finally see the benefits that Misplaced Pages will have by having you have the full button-set. (that was a lot of haves, but I think the grammar holds). Absolutely you should have the admin bit so you can, when you want to, do the small things that you now have to ask other admins for with your cap in hand when you have proven you are perfectly capable of making sound and meticulous judgments. It's a yes from me! Keeper | 76 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
3. 1) Been around a while, 2) Hasn't done anything that stood out as crazy or stupid, 3) Seems clueful. Friday (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support--Giants27 (c|s) 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Absolutely. Every so often we see a candidate and wonder why it has taken so long for a nomination to emerge. This is one of those. Should have had the tools months ago. Years, possibly.--Anthony.bradbury 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. The very model of a modern Wikipedian. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support This user has my trust. hmwithτ 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   On second thought, this user deserves a better support than that. I've seen Skomorokh around everywhere. He's very active, and he always seems to know what he's talking about. hmwithτ 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Support. I've seen him around a lot -- he's clueful, does good work, and civil. He'll make a fine admin. Useight (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I trust Skomorokh. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. To be honest, this is one I didn't research all that well - the reason being that I've seen enough first hand to feel confident in supporting. I admire Skomorokhs ability to maintain a great balance between building the 'pedia, and still keeping that "fun factor" in refusing to get so wrapped up in individual items that he forgets we're all volunteers here. Good level headed approach to the entire project, easy and polite to work with. I'd welcome him into the line of fire ... ehhh ... admin corps. — Ched :  ?  15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Of course. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support; I'm in full agreement with Dank. –Juliancolton | 
14. Support LittleMountain5 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
15. He sees to it that everything is quite correctly wikified!Seriously, although I have disagreed with some actions that I have seen Skomorokh make around the wiki, he truly is a net positive for the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I might not share all of the candidate's views or stances but I was more than once impressed by their work here and have previously thought about why they are not an admin more than once. As such, you may read this as "Per Anthony.bradbury above". ;-) Regards SoWhy 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Good luck! America69 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. My interactions with Skomorokh have left me with a positive impression.--ragesoss (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - as per Ched Davis above, I can't recall seeing Skomorokh involved in anything problematic in any sphere. Will make a solid admin. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I'm confident this editor will make a good administrator. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support the clueful contributor.—S Marshall /_Cont 16:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I see no indication Skomorokh would misuse the tools. For some reason I thought he was an admin already. Timmeh 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Good work around UAA, very clueful. ceranthor 16:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support No research necessary - I've seen him around a lot, and he's been a valued editor everywhere, even when I didn't agree with him. Ray 17:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - honestly, I thought you were one already. I've seen plenty of good work from you and nothing that overtly concerns me (see also my comments by Caspian_blue's neutral !vote). I was also particularly impressed with your self-nom statement - it combines a very cogent justification for why you want admin tools with a very amusing style. Overall I've been consistently impressed and have no real concerns that you'd misuse admin tools. Good luck. ~ mazca 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong support - I wonder what took him so long! He probably doesn't remember interacting with me, but we did once, and it left me the impression that he would be a good admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Enthusiastic support, had a good impression from when seen you around (cliche but had thought you must already be an admin). Know of nothing to make me think you will misuse the tools. (Oh and nice nomination) Davewild (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - Source of many valued contributions. Intelligent and clueful editor. Truly deserving of the tools, he earned it. -- œ 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
29. As clichéd as it is, I thought that you were already an admin. Good luck! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Seen him around, and I don't have any problems with giving him the administrator right. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Great contributions and will be a good admin. Law _{type! snype?} 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support - a good content editor and unafraid to work on difficult topics despite the slings and arrows that brings. No reason not to support. Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support — No concerns. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. One of the oddest user pages I've seen since Her Ladyship passed away. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - we've disagreed, but he's competent and responsible. Tom Harrison 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) neutral pending question below, Tom Harrison 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. I see nothing in his history which indicates the tools would be abused. I think making Skomorokh an admin would be a great benefit to the site. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support High quality editor, copes with disagreement well and has good knowledge of[REDACTED] --Snowded 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Why aren't you one already? Until It Sleeps 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Sensible guy. Why has nobody nominated you before?--Gordonrox24 |  21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Very strong support. One of the smartest editors I've encountered in my time on Misplaced Pages. Capable of working on a wide array of topics -- I think I first encountered him when he was working on bringing William Gibson on FA. I've found him someone who can disagree strongly without being disrespectful (a skill I lack), can help pull sense from chaos, and provide fresh perspectives to entrenched arguments. And he's never lost sight that the primary focus is the content. Precisely the sort of admin we need, in my opinion. --JayHenry (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Support moved from Neutral. Seems enough for getting the bit.--Caspian blue 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Seems eminently reasonable to be sure. Collect (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
44. I can't think why, but I'd have probably opposed a year ago or so. I can't remember why, but I seem to remember some rather negative interaction between us, but can't remember. Since I can't remember or find any diffs, it would be daft to oppose with no evidence, so I support. Majorly talk 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - Trusted editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Could have sworn he was one. GlassCobra 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Not going to join in the "best editor ever" chorus above, but no obvious problems and would probably have a use for it. – iridescent 00:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Thought he was one, probably will wield the mop nicely, even though I had a ~meh experience with him. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Per the "best editor ever" chorus above. Really wanted to find your dark secret, but sadly failed. Good luck. By the way, this goes straight into my quote book: "incitements to terrorism I can appreciate, but the grammar and spacing are atrocious". Classic. Jafeluv (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
51. Support This is one of the best editors that I have ever seen. I think this is one of the few editors who will get unanimous support. Kevin Rutherford (talk)
52. God, so I've got everyone chatting about 'audited contributions', eh? :) Well, he's certainly got plenty of those, and looking at recent GA reviews he shows a strong willingness to improve articles beyond what he considers "ready", which is a major plus. His (rather limited) AfD contributions I've checked seem perfectly reasonable and inquisitive, and his answers at the help desk seem non-bitey, useful, and demonstrative of a grasp of general Wiki-knowledge. Full-on support. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Strong support, it's obvious why. Wizardman 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
54. 'Support -download ׀ sign! 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Seems ready, capable and well qualified...and more interesting than most...Modernist (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
56. Support One of the best. Clueful, friendly, and prolific. Hopefully won't spend too much time on admin actions, as his article improvements are of high value. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. I have seen lots of your good work around. Further review suggests you are insightful and often witty. That's good enough for me.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong support. Civil, capable, and witty...a very rare breed. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - I have been waiting for this one. Tiptoety 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Support I think Gwen Gale said it quite well: "I trust Skomorokh." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Support From what I see you're a highly insightful and fair editor; even, per the neutral comment, towards ostracized groups of editors. I fully trust you with the tools. ThemFromSpace 05:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
62. This RfA just made my day. Skomorokh has been someone who's made a huge imprint on me, an imprint of a hard working, dedicated, civil, humble, clueful, prolific, capable, insightful, and reasonable editor (what a mouthful). His article contributions are simply outstanding, and he manages to combine his article contributions with his other edits very nicely. It appears that he's not easily burned out, and can be a good admin for a while. I have complete confidence in him, and as such, I'm supporting his RfA. (X! · talk)  · @285  ·  05:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Support I wouldn't normally vote in a 62/0/0.999999 situation, but the quality of this production deserves my time to hit the edit button and pile on. wadester16 06:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Support nothing but good for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Per Peter Damian's probably impending oppose. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
66. Support I remember the discussions about Stormfront (website) mentioned below. There have no bearing on Skomorokh's abilities as a potential administrator. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Samir 07:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Support' Nothing but good raves. --TitanOne (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Suppoprt an editor with intergrity. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
70. Support I have no reason to believe this wouldn't be a big net positive. Plastikspork (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Yeah, go ahead and have a mop! You do good work! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
72. Support Good Track has been around since Sept 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
73. I don't normally bother with pile-on Supports, but the nomination statement and WP:SIEGE demonstrate too much clue to pass over. Would it be going too far to say that no better candidate has ever sought the mop-pery, I wonder? Olaf Davis (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
74. Support per position on postmodernism. And, you know, that quality clueful editor thing. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
75. Yes per all of the above - I will elaborate upon request Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Persuasive name brand recognition. MBisanz 13:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
77. Secret 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
78. Absolutely, positively, yes, support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - Wow, this is almost unanimous. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
80. Strong support, per Plastikspork and my consistently good impression of Skomorokh. Very good overall demeanor, I have no concerns, and getting him admin'd will definitely be a net positive for us. JamieS93 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
81. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
82. Support TNXMan 16:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
83. Support I think Skomorokh will be an excellent admin, given what I've seen over the years. --Karbinski (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
84. Support. Most entertaining self-nomination ever.  Sandstein  16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
85. Support — Aitias // discussion 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
86. Support I think he'll be an excellent admin! Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
87. Support, would be a great asset to the overall project.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Totally. Level headed, pragmatic editor who is clearly here for the right reasons. A pleasure to add to the pile on :) Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Already acts like one, might as well make it official ;-) J.delanoy_adds 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
90. Why the hell not? Pmlineditor 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
91. Support Per wadester16, an excellent essay, and actually everything else. --Pgallert (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    Absolutely. Jauarback (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    Above !vote made by a blocked user, striking. TNXMan 11:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

92. It appears to be a foregone conclusion at this juncture but I felt compelled to voice my support nonetheless. Candidate appears to have a firm grasp on policy, plenty of clue, a level head and pretty much everything an admin ought to be. Shereth 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
93. Support - S. is a good editor and will be a good administrator. LadyofShalott 14:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
94. Support ... am I still in the first hundred? Enough said already. NVO (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
95. Strong support - I've been working with Skomorokh for quite a while now; to the point that I can type out the name without going to check the spelling. :D We spent a great deal of time working on Maynard James Keenan which has left me impressed with the candidate's ability to collaborate. We've also spent a good deal of time on Jimmy Wales where the candidate makes good use of the talk page, but has also shown good judgment on making bold edits and demonstrated a strong grasp of content policies. Furthermore, although we don't always agree (in fact, often not) on issues that arise for discussion around the project, Skomorokh has shown consistency in clearly articulating his/her position and backing them with reasoned thought. The project needs more content admins who understand BLP. لennavecia 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
96. Support, without reservations. Levelheaded, witty, a net positive. MLauba (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
97. Support Good nom statement and answers to questions. Will do fine. -FASTILY 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    Support:Per Stifle.--Gordonrox24 |  18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    You've already supported, number 40. — Σxplicit 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    Indented. –Juliancolton |  18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

98. Support. The combination of mainspace contributions with interest in various admin areas show that the user will be good with the sysop abilities. Judging by the basis of their nomination, they have the ability to communicate clearly on the Wiki, and I'm glad to lend my support. -- Nomader 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
99. Support. A consistent voice of reason on WikiProject Objectivism, which has to be one of the most problematic here. Has shown excellent judgment and is a strong worker towards consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
100. Support - Looks like I get to be #100. Skomorokh's dedication to the project is beyond question and his ability to reason is clearly demonstrated by the recent AfD !votes and comments he has made. Additionally, his quick response to my inquires show he will communicate effectively to resolve any complaints he receives about his admin tasks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
101. Support I came accross the user on the wiki project vandalism studies and liked the thought he puts into his essays. I have not found a reason not to support. I think the user is very engaging and throughly thinks through problems. Full support Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
102. Support Great editor who is well qualified to be an administrator. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
103. Support No problems. Triplestop x3 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
104. Support — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
105. Support   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
106. Support - I trust him to be a good admin. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
107. Support – I thought he was one already. His conduct around the wiki, where i've encountered it, has been excellent. I can't recall any negative experiences that i've had with Skomorokh. Firestorm 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
108. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
109. Support per Newyorkbrad. ;) iMatthew  at 23:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
110. Support Excellent user YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
111. This guy is great. And the lone neutral is laughable at best. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
112. Support. I recognize this candidate only from work on his or her successful William Gibson FA. Smart and great user. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
113. Support – I remember one time thinking that Skomorokh was an admin, then checked and was surprised to find 'twas not so. Not too long after that, I started making the same assumption and didn't check, and have since been carrying around the idea that this excellent communicator is an admin. Now I come across this RfA. It looks as if my confused little mind will soon be a little less confused. That's good. Paul Erik 04:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
114. Support Civil, conscientious, courteous, well-informed, a consensus-builder – the editor has an great knack for “walking away from a fight" if the editing environment becomes too heated and personal. I wish that I had his patience. I admire him. J Readings (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
115. Support per TRMan. Tony (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
116. Support Good content contributor and a decent amount of edits unlike the usual 4,000 been here 4 months lets grab some tools tyoe of candidates. Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
117. Support. The candidate appears to be here to do what is necessary, what is compatible with the goal of the project, and what is clueful. —Anonymous Dissident 14:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

     Support. Credit where it is due. Peter Damian (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Back to oppose. I have a very uneasy feeling about this one. Peter Damian (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

118. Support - Calm, conscientious, rational. And writes well too! Has the temperament and competencies for the job. Unreservedly trust him. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
119. Support Certainly. Meetare Shappy 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
120. Yes. No problems here. A good, solid content contributor and apparent knowledge of policy. Cool3 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
121. Support— Dædαlus 20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
122. Support Knowledgeable, balanced and has a calm temperament. Good understanding of RS and NPOV. Need more of his ilk! Abecedare (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
123. Support Finally somebody stood up to the obnoxious copy and paste questions. BJ 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
124. Obvious support for a super editor. I see below that some people have concerns about Skomorokh's views, opinions, and whatnot, but then again, who doesn't disagree with people now and then? I don't care about what Sk. believes about Ayn Rand or what her(?) WikiPhilosophy is.... I care that Skomorokh has an impressive understanding of WP policy and is a huge asset to the encyclopedia all over the place. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

     That comment really says it all, doesn't it. Peter Damian (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

#I am afraid I will have to oppose again. Reasons. The main reason is that although S is probably not an objectivist, he clearly has sympathies for this strange group, which has as a result caused considerable difficulties for the few academically trained philosophers working in this area of Misplaced Pages. For example he did not help in the incident of the IP editor who was causing havoc. He defended the right of the IP to edit here, stating that "The editor's contributions to the Ayn Rand article and related articles have been overwhelmingly positive, and I do not think the cited behaviour can be characterised as edit-warring". This shows astoundingly poor judgment. Further efforts by the neutral editors resulted in a topic ban but this was no thanks to Skoromokh at all. Generally he has resisted any attempt to improve the objectivism-related articles, and has generally shown poor understanding of basic philosophy, e.g. in his discussion of Aristotle here. The same discussion shows he has a weak grasp of the basic principles of WP:OR. As I commented "It is not for me to prove Aristotle did not say these things, but for you to find a reliable source that says he did". Finally, I recognise the names of two die-hard objectivists who have voted 'support', and that is very telling. One of them is a persistent nuisance. Peter Damian (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here, Peter. The IP, although persistently difficult and unresponsive, did add some valuable material to the Rand related articles. Although I was ready to drop a banhammer on the IP a lot sooner than Skomorokh was, I have no intention of ever running for adminship, and except in the case of the most obvious, blatant vandalism, I think it's a very good thing for admins to show restraint with their banhammers. Far better for admins to err on the side of caution than on the side of drama. I will also say that I've consistently found Skomorokh (along with Readings, who I believe would also make a fine admin) one of the sanest and most reasonable editors in the Objectivism wikiproject. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK strike for the moment but I would like Skomorokh to address some of these concerns. The strange views on Aristotle still disturb me. Talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the consideration, will comment on talk in the morning.  Skomorokh  01:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Accusations of "slander" against good faith editors aren't something I expect from an admin. Verbal chat 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

   That sounds quite troubling. Do you have a diff? Cool3 (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   I think Verbal refers to this. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Since that article names names, there would be meaningful BLP worries over this edit by Verbal, unless the org self-identifies with that label. This doesn't mean a quote from a reliable source, pinning that label on them, can't be used, so long as it isn't done with the article's narrative voice (as it happens, I see the article indeed carries an O'Reilly quote which does this), but the category is something else altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   The supposedly 'slanderous' reference was in describing the Stormfront website as 'Neo Nazi'. Having checked out their website, it seems to me that it is. Peter Damian (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   I've been away, sorry. If he had said "BLP concerns" rather than slander that would have been fine, and we could have discussed it. However the Neo-Nazi tag on that article is clearly appropriate and no slander was made or could reasonably have misinterpreted. Verbal chat 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Ciao, Verbal. I think perhaps unintentional semantic interpretations made the conversation a little more heated that it needed to be. I was objecting to the labelling of a group of people with a derogatory title when that label was not supported by the article at the time. There is a clear process for potentially controversial categorisation – find reliable sources to support a negative claim about the subject of the article, make sure there's consensus to include that claim in the article, and then add the appropriate categories. The way it had been done on this particular article – an editor adding a category "simply because" they felt it applied was unfortunate. There were no legal or moral dimensions to my characterisation of your action as slanderous; it was an attempt to convey the seriousness of the issue. The subsequent situation would have been much less charged had I adopted a less confrontational manner. Regards,  Skomorokh  18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Actually I was agreeing with you, Verbal - referring to the fact it was neo-nazi, not that it was slanderous. There is something very disturbing about this editor, whom I have encountered before. He has an extremely libertarian view about the rights of extremist and POV groups to edit Misplaced Pages, which is a view (as you know) to which I am extremely opposed. There is a natural bias against NPOV by the fact these groups have such a strong incentive to get their view across, and I think that NPOV editors should be given a helping hand. Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   You might be interested in this conversation on the matter Peter; I suspect it might confirm your position. The GA delisting of the Stormfront article over neutrality concerns might also be worth reading. Regards,  Skomorokh  18:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you I have read that and now I am even more disturbed. You say "On a philosophical level, perhaps the difference between you and I Guy is that I think there is a very important difference between neutral point of view and mainstream point of view. You, me and the dog it the street might agree that Hitler was a genocidal dictator, but the Misplaced Pages entry on him says he was an Austrian-born politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. I don't understand why "just the facts, please" is not an appropriate way to handle controversial topics. " I agree with Guy there that WP is there to represent the mainstream point of view, which just is NPOV as we interpret it. You seem to be on a crusade here, Skomorokh. Peter Damian (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   <- I don't see how anyone could agree with this edit, e.g. Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   There's nothing substantial about that edit; it only made the points that claims which are not in the main body of the article cannot be part of a summary of that article, and that the passive voice should be avoided (i.e. say "Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website" or "Stormfront is considered by A, B and C to be a neo-Nazi website" but not "Stormfront is considered to be a neo-Nazi website" as the latter is weasely).  Skomorokh  18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I prefer not to award powers and privileges to people who don't assign any importance to other editors' rights. Groomtech (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Back to oppose. There is something very disturbing about this application. My first instinct was correct. Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral because I'm not sure. The name certainly rings a bell, but Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#User:Skomorokh that Orangemarlin initiated prevents me from easily supporting him without reserve at this time.--Caspian blue 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Support. I mistook Orangemarlin as some admin with a similar name in good standing, so I thought the complaint seemed to me legitimate, although the usage of language by the complainer did not sound like that of good admins. Since Skomorokh and other supports have demonstrated the situation well, and the candidate civilly handled difficult editors' inflated accusations. On the other hand, Goodmorningworld, that evaluation is absolutely a news to me (perhaps to many others).--Caspian blue 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This one, perhaps? I don't understand what difference being an admin makes to the legitimacy of anyone's arguments, though. Jafeluv (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No not him, the admin that I mistook has a name with different fruit. :) I reviewed the complaint more closely, and found less legitimate because the candidate did for NPOV.--Caspian blue 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am troubled by that ANI report. Mathsci, a respected editor, had some critical things to say there. It's odd that Skomorokh never responded there. Skomoroh, admins must be responsive to criticism. Can you explain why we should not see this as a potentially bad omen? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at that incident too; in the end the conclusion I came to was that it was rather overblown. My impression of Skomorokh's activities there was that at worst s/he was possibly taking a slightly too verificationist stance - the ANI report seemed premature and possibly based on personal disagreements; and the diffs provided to demonstrate a 3RR violation were seriously pushing the definition of a "revert". Skomorokh seemed, to me, to be removing the unreferenced PoV from the article rather than adding more; and cutting the content down to only that which was strictly supported by the sources. I'm not entirely sure Skomorokh behaved quite ideally there (a lucid response to the allegations at ANI probably would have helped, and perhaps a slow-down in editing while disagreements were settled) but ultimately I did not come to the conclusion that there was anything overtly bad going on. ~ mazca 16:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I was aware of that too, and I disregarded it. You can expect most people who come to RFA with 40k edits to have had some drama in their history (and if not, they aren't ready to be an admin because they're not venturing into controversial areas and hence lack relevant experience). In that case, I find the complaints against Skomorokh ill-founded, and his handling of drama by ignoring it rather appropriate.—S Marshall /_Cont 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo, sorry for not addressing this earlier. Mazca above nails the aspect of my approach that contributed to the problem; I could certainly have handled the matter better, not realising at the time the sensitivity of American race relations. I don't remember that particular ANI thread, though the initiator did notify me. Of course, for an administrator, ignoring drama is not an option. The issue spawned multiple threads as I recall, including this one in which I discussed the article with Mathsci. Cheers,  Skomorokh  18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I think Skomorokh is a smart editor, makes intelligent comments in discussions and has contributions commensurate with what I expect from an administrator. On the other hand, Skomorokh has (on one occasion that I've seen) criticised the blocking/banning of disruptive pro-pedophilia advocates and Holocaust deniers - describing the former (since banned) of ephebophilia, and the latter (since banned) of having an epistemological difference of opinion on the Holocaust. Perhaps this will sound like sour grapes, as the comment I refer to was left on my own RfA over a year ago. I hope the fact that this is a neutral and that more than a year has passed will allay those concerns, but perhaps not. But for his position on these issues, which I still find troubling, I would support. Nathan 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   Rereading that comment I made, I am somewhat shamed at its tone; I think I got rather caught up in the stridency of the debate and was more concerned with taking a firm stance than with keeping in mind that the topic at hand was a human being (and volunteer at that) rather than a policy issue. I do resolutely stand behind my position that neither belief in the Holocaust nor sexual attraction to adults are prerequisites for editing the encyclopaedia, though I could have expressed that more clearly at the time. Regards,  Skomorokh  09:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, "neither belief in the Holocaust nor sexual attraction to adults are prerequisites for editing"? Are these things about which reasonable people disagree? Tom Harrison 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well no, obviously they are extreme minority opinions. However, one's "crazy" beliefs don't inhibit their ability to edit. Of course if soemone with said belief is being disruptive they can be blocked for being disruptive, but merely having the belief isn't a reason to prohibit them from editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Describing the holocaust as something that's believed in is problematic, but I'm more concerned with the philosophy underlying the statement. This seems likely to encourage yet more overemphasis of fringe theories, and a presentation that measures neutrality by some standard other than what the reliable sources say. Tom Harrison 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)