Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh

Skomorokh

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (129/8/1); 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 Wikipedia 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" Wikipedia and the editors there once posted a listing of Jewish Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia-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)

Sorry for not replying to this sooner; I have been thinking about it and do intend to offer some thoughts later.  Skomorokh  12:42, 12 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: The doctrine of "assume good faith" is a response to a lack of information about your fellow editor's intentions. In cases where those intentions are known – and there are more than one of those where Peter Damian is concerned – nothing need be assumed. Where doubt does exist, it's almost always an optimum strategy to assume good faith and respond politely to the editor – if they are acting in good faith, all goes well; if they are being petulant/histronic/throwing tantrums, good faith will go towards stabilising the situation and helping the editor regain their cool; if the editor is contributing in bad faith, getting excited about it and conducting a witchhunt guarantees that you will have been successfully trolled.  Skomorokh  03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Additional question from user:Peter Damian

11. Why do you refer to a pedophile as an 'ephebophile'? Do you think that people who label themselves in this way belong on Wikipedia? It is well known that they are in denial about their sexuality and invent such terms to minimise the reality of it. Thus 'boy lover', 'girl lover' and of course 'ephebophile'. As the father of children who also use Wikipedia, I am very uncomfortable that you support the presence of such undesirable people here. This is also the post where you talk about the epistemological stance on the Holocaust. The expression epistemological stance seems rather like 'ephebophile' here. It seems like an attempt to use language to disguise and gloss over the full reality and horror of the case.

Why I chose to phrase a comment made in passing over a year ago is not, evidently, something considered important enough to remember. I have offered a perspective on prejudicially restricting editors below. Regards,  Skomorokh  04:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from Tony1

12. Like many people, you hold strong opinions about certain matters. Can you give us an example—hypothetical or real—that might require / would require you to think carefully about how to sequester those opinions from your duty to be NPOV as an admin?

A: Thanks for the question, Tony. Honestly, I can't remember any occasion when my "real life" beliefs (i.e. moral, political, cultural) caused me to get agitated or emotionally invested in an on-wiki situation, and I rarely get into personal dispute. The times when I have gotten heated or when my neutrality has been questioned have almost always been when metapedian issues (meta:exclusionism, meta:immediatism, and so on) were front and centre. For example, I knew that had I gotten as involved as I had wished in the recent discussion concerning user page indexing, about which I have quite strong opinions, I might have ended up losing my cool. I feel similarly strongly about safeguarding the ability of anonymous and unregistered editors to contribute, the scope of flagged revisions, administrator accountability and other issues especially pertaining to the radical openness and power dynamics of the project. As to how this would effect my actions as an administrator, I would not act in that capacity where my position is significantly out of sync with a plurality of those involved (i.e. [[ here), or in situations to which the assistance of competent outside administrators could be drawn without too much difficulty (for example certain issues surrounding the Jimmy Wales article over which I have had disagreements). As maligned as it is, WP:AIN is a forum at which attention can be drawn and – ultimately, though rarely without noise – assistance and good judgement received from non-invested experienced administrators. I'm not sure if I answered your question in the manner you intended, so if there's anything else please feel free to follow up.  Skomorokh  12:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Juliancolton

13. Now that your RfA is approaching its end, what are your thoughts on the process?

A:

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

• 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. Jamie^☆S93 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• To Groomtech, Carlos, Thaddeus, Fastily, I have consciously chosen not to answer your questions on principle. I believe that questions that (a) don't arise from a the candidate's contributions (b) don't otherwise have particular relevance to the candidate in question lower the standard of discussion and do not encourage editors to research the candidate fully. I mean no disrespect personally, my choice is simply an effort to influence RfA culture and raise the standards of discourse. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  04:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Every time I've encountered Skomorokh I've been impressed. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 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 Wikipedia 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^"talk" 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 | ^Talk
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 ^Talk/_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^Talk 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) neutral pending question below, Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Skomorokh's philosophy is shared by many editors, though it's at odds with my own. Still, He's competent and responsible, and there's every reason to expect he'll use the tools sensibly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 12 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 WIkipedia --Snowded ^TALK 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Why aren't you one already? Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Sensible guy. Why has nobody nominated you before?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Very strong support. One of the smartest editors I've encountered in my time on Wikipedia. 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 ^(talk) 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)

    Support Seems ready, capable and well qualified...and more interesting than most...Modernist (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

    I'm changing to oppose - responses to questions seem guarded, non-forthcoming, vague, ambiguous, and leaves a few too many unanswered...Modernist (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

55. 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)
56. 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)
57. Strong support. Civil, capable, and witty...a very rare breed. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - I have been waiting for this one. Tiptoety ^talk 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Support I think Gwen Gale said it quite well: "I trust Skomorokh." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
60. 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)
61. 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)
62. 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)
63. Support nothing but good for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Per Peter Damian's probably impending oppose. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
65. 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)
66. Samir 07:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Support' Nothing but good raves. --TitanOne (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Suppoprt an editor with intergrity. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Support I have no reason to believe this wouldn't be a big net positive. Plastikspork (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Yeah, go ahead and have a mop! You do good work! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
71. Support Good Track has been around since Sept 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
72. 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)
73. Support per position on postmodernism. And, you know, that quality clueful editor thing. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
74. Yes per all of the above - I will elaborate upon request Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Persuasive name brand recognition. MBisanz ^talk 13:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
76. Secret ^account 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
77. Absolutely, positively, yes, support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, July 8, 2009 (UTC)
78. Support - Wow, this is almost unanimous. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
79. 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. Jamie^☆S93 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
80. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
81. Support TNXMan 16:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
82. 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)
83. Support. Most entertaining self-nomination ever.  Sandstein  16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
84. Support — Aitias // discussion 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
85. Support I think he'll be an excellent admin! Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
86. Support, would be a great asset to the overall project.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
87. 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)
88. Support Already acts like one, might as well make it official ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
89. Why the hell not? Pmlineditor 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
90. 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)

91. 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)
92. Support - S. is a good editor and will be a good administrator. LadyofShalott 14:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
93. Support ... am I still in the first hundred? Enough said already. NVO (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
94. 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)

    I want to add how impressed I am with the way Skomorokh is keeping cool under pressure and clearly articulating view points and explaining issues that are bring brought up by opposers. لennavecia 04:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

95. Support, without reservations. Levelheaded, witty, a net positive. MLauba (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
96. Support Good nom statement and answers to questions. Will do fine. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

97. 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 ^(Talk) 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
98. 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)
99. 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)
100. 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)
101. Support Great editor who is well qualified to be an administrator. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
102. Support No problems. Triplestop x3 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
103. Support — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
104. Support   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
105. Support - I trust him to be a good admin. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
106. 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 ^Talk 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
107. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
108. Support per Newyorkbrad. ;) iMatthew ^talk at 23:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
109. Support Excellent user YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
110. This guy is great. And the lone neutral is laughable at best. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
111. 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)
112. 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 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
113. 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)
114. Support per TRMan. Tony (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
115. 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 ^{White cat} 11:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
116. 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^Talk 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)

117. 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)
118. Support Certainly. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
119. Yes. No problems here. A good, solid content contributor and apparent knowledge of policy. Cool3 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
120. Support— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

     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)

     I am striking my !vote because I find the wording of comments like the second part of this one ("What is problematic about describing the Holocaust as something that is believed in? Is the minority opinion on the issue not termed 'Holocast denial'?") troubling, and I have not looked into the editing history of Skomorokh deeply enough to know if this is just a matter of casual phrasing for rhetorical impact, or if it represents a more fundamental difference in our understanding what is NPOV and encyclopedic. Abecedare (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

121. Support Finally somebody stood up to the obnoxious copy and paste questions. BJ^Talk 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
122. 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 ^talk/_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)

123. Support - being honest is the most important asset of an editor, and more so an admin. This guy reeks honesty. --Cerejota (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
124. Support Colchicum (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
125. Support. Strong candidate, net positive. — Σxplicit 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
126. Strong Support. About time! Aaroncrick (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
127. Support per my criteria. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
128. Support: Net positive. No harm ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
129. Kusma (talk) 06:28, 13 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 Wikipedia. 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 [Damian] to prove Aristotle did not say these things, but for you [Skomorokh] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 would agree, with qualification: Wikipedia should represent the mainstream point of view in matters of fact, but not make mainstream value judgements. "Twilight was one of the best-selling works of young adult fiction sold in 2008" might be an appropriate sentence to include in a Wikipedia article on the novel; "Twilight is unimaginative dross" would not. There's a reason articles on publications tend to have a "Critical reception" section rather than a "Quality" one.  Skomorokh  21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   How is the claim about Hitler being a genocidal dictator, which you do not want Wikipedia to say, an 'opinion'? On any reasonable view, Hitler was both genocidal (by his authority many millions of people were exterminated) and he was a dictator. Keep on digging that hole for yourself. Peter Damian (talk) 06:54, 12 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)

   Yes you made similar weasel-like claims to remove any criticism of Ayn Rand in the introduction, I think. As a result of this Wikipedia's version of the truth resembles no other tertiary source in existence. Peter Damian (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   What weasel-like claims? It's wildly inaccurate to say the current state of the introduction of the Ayn Rand article is "as a result" of my edits. The encyclopaedia must distinguish between fact and opinion, per WP:ASF, and not try to mince the two to introduce POV.  Skomorokh  21:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

   Peter Damian has a point here. That as article is crap and biased is not a reason to make the lead crap and biased. I's rather have the lead summarized the ideal article rather than the current one. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Having witnessed the fractious efforts of editors trying to agree as to what the ideal version of the lead is, I came to the conclusion that it is better to get the work done first.  Skomorokh  08:46, 12 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)

   What, because Sk didn't respond to your stock question, suddenly that means s/he doesn't care about editors' rights? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Apparently not: at least, not enough to want to make any position known. Groomtech (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry Groomtech, but as other candidates have pointed out before, that question is far too vague to be able to give a useful answer to. My stance on editor's rights should be very clear from my contributions, and while no-one expects you to trawl through every edit a candidate makes, it is expected that !voters familiarise themselves with the candidate through researching, especially in areas in which one has a particular interest. Regards,  Skomorokh  13:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Some candidates have thought it important enough to address and answer, others have not. As I said, I prefer not to support those who have not. Groomtech (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hooray. Another RfA shtick for the 'crats to ignore. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:40, 12 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)
4. Oppose Okay, this is entirely symbolic and I don't really want nor expect to see this fail, but I do have an uneasy feeling. I applaud you for not 'playing the game', taking control and initiative in the RfA and not being a doormat for fear of losing supporters. While self-confidence can be a fantastic quality, it also can lead to mistakes and an unwillingness to admit them. You are indeed experienced, and have an obvious legion of supporters compared to a modicum of opposers, and are not one I'd expect to go nuts, but I wanted to ensure you wouldn't get ahead of yourself. You are a fantastic editor who is probably more valuable than I, but everyone always reads the opposes, and I just wanted to voice that small concern. I look forward to seeing you wield the tools. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I cannot trust this user as a user let alone an admin from what I have seen in the manner in which they have expressed their views. I will probably not expand because my votes have already been declared invalid by at least one Crat so it would be a waste of time to bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I would be interested in reading your thoughts, even if others are not. Regards,  Skomorokh  22:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

   It deals with many of the individuals and positions you have defended. I defend people that have had some civility problems or disputes. However, there are certain people with certain mindsets that use Wikipedia for the wrong reasons (promoting their twisted viewpoint) and I have seen far too many defenses of such people that give me a really bad feeling. I have also seen a few key alterations of key words that make me feel that there is a lack of neutrality, or an overcompensating to be "nice" to a group in order to seem to be neutral. But as I said, my vote will be discounted (and your percentage is way too good in your favor regardless) so you wont have to care. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose Sorry, although this editor knows how to write, I don't quite trust him with the tools. Cardamon (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose Responses to questions seem guarded, non-forthcoming, vague, ambiguous, and leaves a few too many unanswered...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with people above--you're not a quality article generator, and you tend to generate dramah instead.--Eric Barbour (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral because I'm not sure. The name certainly rings a bell, but Wikipedia: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 ^talk 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 ^Talk/_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 ^T 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 ^Talk 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what your question has to do with the quotation. One's sexual attraction is not considered something subject to reason, in that one can't make a rational decision to be a heterosexual, homosexual, zoophile, whatever. I don't think the historical accuracy of the consensus reality of the Holocaust is something most people I'd consider reasonable debate, but then I don't see what that has to do with editing Wikipedia. Everyone has personal beliefs, and as long as those beliefs are consistent with the projects goals, and one does not try to inappropriately slant the encyclopaedia towards them, I don't see how restricting contributors on ideological grounds is at all justifiable.  Skomorokh  21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"The consensus reality of the Holocaust?" Seriously? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "what most people believe the Holocaust to be". Look I have absolutely no controversial beliefs about the Holocaust whatsoever, it's not something I have ever taken an interest in or read about in any depth. Could you be a little more obvious about what you are looking for me to answer?  Skomorokh  22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned these ideas of a "consensual reality," and the holocaust as something to be believed in, will lead to over-representation of fringe theories, and to some kind of wiki-neutrality that doesn't match what a man would see reading the sources. I have to observe the community is giving you a ringing endorsement, so there's no need to get upset about my concerns. Thanks for taking time to reply. I'll think about what you've said. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I would say that there probably are philosophical differences between us on the matter, but as an editor it is extremely rare that I get involved in content with fringe debates. I am not at all upset at thus point, merely a little exasperated at my failure to make myself understood. I appreciate your patience and direct manner. Regards,  Skomorokh  08:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rarely get involved in fringe debates? So why do you say recommend here that editors should ideally "pick an unpopular or marginal viewpoint and try and correct the mainstream bias by writing from a neutral point of view on it"? Why get involved in Ayn Rand and Stormfront and pedophilia-related issues?Peter Damian (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I made that recommendation because I believe that it is a good way to put the NPOV policy to the test and learn the nuances and pitfalls involved. I have devoted almost no attention to sexuality-related topics, I began editing the Stormfront article as a challenge to see if I could develop it to GA standard (as mentioned above), and I found Rand to be an interesting cultural anomaly. All together these topics – thankfully – have been the focus of a tiny minority of my edits, and more trouble than they are worth.  Skomorokh  08:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But when you do get involved, it is in an extremely controversial way. As a parent, I find your views about pedophile editors - one of whom was rightly blocked after an incident involving an under-age RfA - extremely disturbing. Peter Damian (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

An scholarly project that would ban Plato, Mackay and Wilde from contributing out of disapproval of their private lives would not be worthy of the name. A sad state of affairs indeed, and how little things change.  Skomorokh  03:45, 13 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 ^Talk 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my problem with this editor. My view is that Wikipedia should reflect other tertiary sources as far as possible. The idea that we can synthesise our own view of what is verifiable seems guaranteed to encourage every kind of fringe theory. Indeed, my experience of Skomorokh is precisely that. He talks about verifiability a lot, but the end result is very different. Peter Damian (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am probably only digging my hole deeper by replying at this point, but I maintain that I write articles which take the POV advanced by the majority of the sources. To take a few examples of articles I am primarily responsible for, anarchy in Somalia is written from a right-libertarian-capitalist POV, CrimethInc. is written from an anti-capitalist anarchist POV, and Katie Sierra suspension controversy from a Sierra-sympathetic POV because of the sum perspective of the references used. I absolutely reject the notion that "we can synthesise our own view of what is verifiable".  Skomorokh  22:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely and categorically reject the idea that we accept the POV of 'the majority of the sources'. The reliability of the source is only what counts. Where reliable sources disagree, then perhaps we have to synthesise. Even there, we should ensure that the position expressed by Wikipedia is not too different from that given by Britannica. Any other way guarantees disaster. You can find many more sources on the view that diesel fumes cannot kill human beings than otherwise, but this does not mean those sources are correct. Peter Damian (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to jump in with a clarification about the weighted perspective of the comprehensive reliable sources used in the article, but at this point, I think I am wasting my time. Your manner of investigation seems to be primarily concerned with interpreting my comments so to confirm existing hypotheses rather than understanding.  Skomorokh  08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry my understanding of what you said was based on a reasonable interpretation of what you say. You only mentioned 'weighting' very recently. And how exactly are these sources to be 'weighted'? Do you give e.g. 30% 'weight' to article X on holocaust denial on the Stormfront website, or what? My approach is to discount all possibly unreliable sources completely and entirely. And if you think you are now wasting your time that rather suggests it is you who are interpreting comments so to confirm existing hypotheses rather than understanding. Peter Damian (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"My approach is to discount all possibly unreliable sources completely and entirely." Then we are in complete agreement, as that is just the approach I took to sourcing the Stormfront article. Regards,  Skomorokh  08:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What is problematic about describing the Holocaust as something that is believed in? Is the minority opinion on the issue not termed "Holocast denial"?  Skomorokh  21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't say people believe in Los Angles, or the M2 Browning machine gun. Why would we say that people, or even an overwhelming majority of historians, believe in the holocaust? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, so I am probably not the best person to ask. I think "believe in x" in this context is used to mean something like "accepts the veracity of the most well-known description of x". I'm really not sure where you are going with this though.  Skomorokh  22:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh's point seems to be that we should be tolerant of editors whose ideology we find offensive, because it does not necessarily impact or reflect the nature of their mainspace editing. He is right that such editors may not produce defective content, though they often do. Even so, that we know the views of these editors at all indicates they openly profess them. I'm not talking about editors taking a position on the conflict in the Middle East, or holding a nationalist point of view on Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia. I'm referring to Holocaust deniers and advocates of violence, race hatred and pedophilia. People who openly admit and argue these beliefs are among the very few whose simple presence is so disruptive to the community that it damages the encyclopedia. I realize that banning people for their beliefs treads on truly dangerous ground, but I submit that we have in fact been doing this for some time without major incident and without expanding to less widely objectionable views. (Well, truthfully and given the forum for this comment, we've banned people for arguing that there are too many administrators or that self-nominations are a sign of power hunger...) I also understand the view that we should condemn these people without silencing them, and as a matter of public policy I wholeheartedly agree - but Wikipedia is a private project created for a specific purpose, and it is not and should not be required to accept individuals whose stated views are so strongly offensive to the vast majority of the community that makes Wikipedia what it is.

I personally see this as separate from the concerns expressed by others, that Skomorokh's position as I've described it above indicates he will be tolerant of POV editors in other areas; that may well be the case, but I prefer not to conflate tolerance for Holocaust deniers and pedophilia advocates with tolerance for people who believe in cold fusion or the deadly effects of vaccine preservatives and fluoridated water. Nathan ^T 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That sums up perfectly my problems about this case. Being less tolerant about open advocates of extreme views is something I have campaigned for on Wikipedia for many years (and have indeed been blocked and banned for). S is arguing for tolerance of those whose presence is so disruptive to the activities of genuinely neutral editors that it will drive them away and destroy the project. (Interesting consequence, that - perhaps I should switch back to support). Peter Damian (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. Your wish to destroy Wikipedia is well known, but really, you can stop now. From what i've gathered, Skomorokh is saying that we should be tolerant of people who have all different viewpoints, not that we need to allow POV pushing and disruption. If somebody has, for example, nationalist views, that's alright as long as they don't push them into the articles they write (which is a problem that persists on the wiki, but can be dealt with by adhering to NPOV). It really is a lovely straw man, though. Firestorm ^Talk 00:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan draws a crucial distinction between editors with minority views, those who openly profess such views on Wikipedia, and those who attempt to inappropriately edit encyclopaedia content to reflect those views. That third group is POV-pushers, and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. The second group, while not having necessarily done anything wrong as far as norms of conduct go, show by their profession that they don't get it – that editors' perspectives on topics are irrelevant to how articles should be written – and in my experience usually end up on the wrong side of an NPOV dispute sooner or later. It's the suggestion that the first group – editors with minority viewpoints who neither feel the need to profess them at length nor push them in articles – be banned outright that I object to. Simply having a belief is not a punishable offence, i.e. thoughtcrime. Passing judgement and banning editors for single non-elective traits they shared with others who had been troublesome in the past is to fail to assess each editor on their merits – in other words, prejudice. The problem is not that it is unfair, it's that it is detrimental to the progress of a free, quality encyclopaedia.

Nathan says "I realize that banning people for their beliefs treads on truly dangerous ground, but I submit that we have in fact been doing this for some time without major incident and without expanding to less widely objectionable views." I don't believe this is a tenable strategy; we don't have to cast our minds back very far to remember when participation on WP:BADSITES was enough to tar and feather an editor. The issue here is that whatever problematic belief you chose to make worthy of banning – Zionism, paedophilia-acceptance, cold fusion advocate – it will always be used by unscrupulous editors as a label to stick to their disputants and advance their position in the power struggle. This is not hypothetical; if you were around in 2007 you will remember this as a favourite tactic of certain notorious and now fallen-from-grace power-admins. Ultimately, it is the neutrality of the articles which matters, not the personalities, and futile efforts to neutralize editors will only be exploited in the end.  Skomorokh  03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The key point is "those who attempt to inappropriately edit encyclopaedia content to reflect those views.". In my view you have been far too lenient in your desire that everyone should edit, and the result has been bad. The Ayn Rand and associated articles are a case in point. No reasonable person would think that the sheer proliferation of Rand-related material reflects current mainstream academic consensus. The reality is that it reflects the determined efforts of a crowd of fans, who refuse to let any kind of negative comment about Objectivism. This is a very serious problem for Wikipedia, and a very difficult one. Your view seems to be that neutrally-minded editors should put up or shut up. As for destroying Wikipedia, the community itself seems to be managing this quite well. Peter Damian (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)