Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Snottywong

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Snottywong User groups:	reviewer First edit:	Mar 17, 2007 14:43:42 Unique pages edited:	3,071 Average edits per page:	2.59 Live edits:	7,377 Deleted edits:	564 Total edits (including deleted):	7,941

Namespace Totals

Article	1891	25.63% Talk	685	9.29% User	519	7.04% User talk	1143	15.49% Wikipedia	2764	37.47% Wikipedia talk	210	2.85% File	22	0.30% File talk	17	0.23% Template	78	1.06% Template talk	32	0.43% Help	1	0.01% Help talk	2	0.03% Category	12	0.16% Portal	1	0.01%

Month counts

2007/03	62	2007/04	90	2007/05	73	2007/06	4	2007/07	0	2007/08	0	2007/09	28	2007/10	44	2007/11	1	2007/12	1	2008/01	0	2008/02	0	2008/03	3	2008/04	0	2008/05	2	2008/06	0	2008/07	4	2008/08	0	2008/09	0	2008/10	0	2008/11	2	2008/12	0	2009/01	0	2009/02	0	2009/03	0	2009/04	0	2009/05	0	2009/06	0	2009/07	0	2009/08	0	2009/09	0	2009/10	180	2009/11	296	2009/12	375	2010/01	14	2010/02	8	2010/03	34	2010/04	39	2010/05	211	2010/06	808	2010/07	840	2010/08	757	2010/09	466	2010/10	858	2010/11	589	2010/12	814	2011/01	439	2011/02	335

Top edited pages

Article 101 - CobraNet 45 - Risk_(game) 37 - List_of_companies_and_cities_in_Africa_that_manufa... 19 - Risk:_Factions 19 - BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant 16 - Dante_(networking) 14 - Constant_voltage_speaker_system 13 - Bose_stereo_speakers 12 - Disappearance_of_Kyron_Horman 11 - Phantom_power

Talk 45 - CobraNet 32 - Bose_stereo_speakers 29 - List_of_fighter_aircraft 25 - Popular_cat_names 21 - Logarithm/GA1 20 - Risk_(game) 15 - Foot_odor 14 - Masonic_Temple 14 - United_States 11 - Existence_(The_X-Files)/GA1

User 97 - Snottywong/sandbox 70 - Snottywong/diffconverter.js 68 - Snottywong/cleanuptags.js 48 - Snottywong/votetab.js 34 - Snottywong/monobook.js 34 - Snottywong/List_of_fighter_aircraft 33 - Snottywong/fighterextract.js 32 - Snottywong 32 - Snottywong/sig 15 - Verbal/userboxes/ARSbackfire

User talk 128 - Snottywong 66 - Snottywong/Archive_1 32 - Colonel_Warden 31 - Jclemens 29 - Epeefleche 18 - Snottywong/List_of_fighter_aircraft 17 - Jack_Merridew 15 - Spartaz 12 - Unomi 11 - Dream_Focus

Wikipedia 153 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 44 - Articles_for_deletion/Bose_stereo_speakers 38 - Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden 32 - Requests_for_comment/Jclemens 31 - Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Masonic_buildings 26 - Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Snottywong/userboxes/... 24 - Bot_requests 23 - Village_pump_(technical) 23 - Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_30 23 - Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sailors_at_the_Summe...

Wikipedia talk 58 - Article_Rescue_Squadron 40 - Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden 32 - New_pages_patrol 10 - Notability_(films) 10 - Bots/Requests_for_approval 9 - Requests_for_comment/Jclemens 7 - Twinkle/RFA 6 - Don't-give-a-fuckism 4 - WikiProject_Professional_sound_production 3 - Twinkle/Bugs

File 3 - Dante-logo.png 2 - Kyron_Horman.jpg 2 - C9.ogg 2 - C2.ogg 2 - BullTOC.png 1 - C3.ogg 1 - C1.ogg 1 - C4.ogg 1 - C0.ogg 1 - C6.ogg

File talk 1 - Little_Busters_manga_volume_1_cover.jpg 1 - Tropico2.jpg 1 - Halo2_widescreen.jpg 1 - Doctor_Who_The_Adventure_Games_concept_4.jpg 1 - Pogo_joe.gif 1 - Simtown.gif 1 - Tower_of_Myraglen.jpg 1 - Eva_battle_orchestra.jpg 1 - DDO_Cinnis_fight.jpg 1 - Civ01.png

Template 17 - Patrollink 16 - Infobox_AoE 9 - ARSnote 8 - X5 4 - Conduct_Notice 3 - X6 3 - X3 2 - Bose 2 - Infobox_AoE/doc 2 - Invitation_to_edit/testcases

Template talk 10 - Reflist 8 - Nfl_predraft 7 - Afd2 2 - Infobox_video_game 2 - Multiple_issues 2 - International_Airshows 1 - Freemasonry2

Help 1 - Reverting

Help talk 2 - Template

Category 1 - GA-Class_Professional_sound_production_articles 1 - Mid-importance_Professional_sound_production_artic... 1 - High-importance_Professional_sound_production_arti... 1 - Top-importance_Professional_sound_production_artic... 1 - Sustainability 1 - Low-importance_Professional_sound_production_artic... 1 - NA-importance_Professional_sound_production_articl... 1 - Old_Etonians 1 - Former_pupils_by_school_in_the_United_Kingdom 1 - Former_pupils_by_school_in_England

Portal 1 - Biography/Selected_anniversaries/June_20

Moved from main page, response to Balloonman's question RE User Name

 * Comment If memory serves both User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and User:Bongwarrior had concerns over their username at their RFA and neither has changed their usernames.... and rightly so. Pedro : Chat  23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a deal breaker for me, but it is a concern that I wanted to raise. Remember that User:Budgiekiller did change his name when running for admin or was it when he ran for 'crat?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-remembered prescedent, Balloonman. Yes, Budgiekiller (which references some sports rivalry thing) changed when asked in RFA, in 2007. CHU. Whilst I wouldn't personally insist on a namechange to support, I can see your point that it might not be ideal to show professionalism, and changing it would probably be best, unless you are really extremely attached to it.  Chzz  ► 13:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would shortening my signature to something like SW be a significant improvement? Snotty Wong   spout 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for others, but for me, it would... when I first saw your RfA, I thought for sure it was a NOTNOW rfa; again it's that first impression that your username leaves people with. It also sets the tone in how others view you.  I honestly believe that if you changed your name/sig, that others would start to see you in a better light.  At bare minimum, it indicates a person who hears and understands the concerns of others, assesses the issue an acts upon it.  (As Pedro pointed out, it is not required that you change it, but something to consider.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

moved from main page here, if you do decide to change your name/sig as a result of this discussion, you might want to indicate that on the main page, I just felt that the discussion was getting a little astray/long for the main page.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had similar objections to User:NuclearWarfare's handle, which for me raises much more serious tone issues than something as innocuous as "snotty". Eye of the beholder, I guess. At the time of his RfA he said he'd be open to changing it and later he simply shortened his signature to NW as SW has proposed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Actually, my concern was more over the sexual implication that Wong conjures when placed after the snotty. Call me a dirty old man, but the combination of snotty and wong just brings an image to mind that I'd rather not think about...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion: this is massively overblown. If his name was "Shitface" or "Fuckyou" I'd understand, but Snottywong? It's just a nickname. Some people are clearly oversensitive. AD 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, I remember this came up once before on my user talk page, and the overall sentiment was that there wasn't a problem (see User talk:Snottywong/Archive 2). I understand that my username is not problematic to the point that I could be forced to change it, but I am also sensitive to the concerns brought up by Balloonman and others.  I will explore my options regarding a username change and/or a sig change and see if there is any room for improvement with which I am comfortable.  Snotty Wong   gossip 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, you are a dirty old man. "Wong" isn't slang for "penis", and if it invokes that picture in your mind, it's solely due to your imagination. The discussion SW linked to above is the perfect example as to why this concern shouldn't need to be addressed.  Swarm   X 10:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Next thing you know you'll be telling me that nice tracks of land isn't a euphamism for boobs.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But father, I don't like her. I'd just rather sing.....  Snotty Wong   spout 17:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, one could question the appropriateness of your name, Balloonman. :P  Swarm   X 18:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I want you to know that I am a professional latex manipulator!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense. However, if you were simply called 'Latexman' you could have avoided such confusion.  Swarm   X 19:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re oppose No. 13
Revisiting the unanswered questions there. The first was that the candidate did not appear to have checked the NPR link given early in an AFD, that pretty clearly showed the topic was notable. A due diligence issue. The second was his consistent addition of the tl-rescue tag at AFDs as opposed to adding project notifications. Why does he feel the first is so much more important than the second? The third was understatement of WP conflicts. Now to raise a fourth and fifth. The reply states "If that makes me appear to be frequently wrong, so be it." Kind of manifesto-style language, I'd rather see plain exposition. And the statement that if the ARS wants me to recuse myself from closing Rescue articles, they can show a consensus for that - why ask that a probably lengthy and contentious discussion be started? Novickas (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware you wanted me to answer all of those questions. I'll try to do that below:

&mdash;Snotty Wong  express 20:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Regarding the NPR link, my main concern in that AfD was the original research that the article contained when I voted on it (the entire content of the article was later deleted and rewritten). Notability was only a secondary consideration, which may be why I neglected to put as much effort as I should have into researching it.  I can't remember if I actually read that NPR link or not, but reading it now I can see how it could assert notability.  Whether we need a separate article on Porch sitting distinct from Porch is something I'm still not convinced of, however.
 * 2) Regarding ARS notifications on AfD's: The instructions for tagging an article for rescue include the following phrase (in bold): "As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen." This is an instruction that very few people follow.  Most add the rescue tag and never mention it at the deletion discussion.  I believe it is important to notify the deletion discussion for two reasons:  Firstly, the closing admin should be aware of it in case the article is significantly changed during the course of the AfD's (in which case, prior votes must be considered based on the state of the article at the time the vote was cast).  Secondly, the closing admin should be aware of any possible canvassing behavior as a result of the rescue tag's use.  The rescue tag does notify a certain group of editors who have a propensity to be inclusionists, and therefore has the potential to be used for canvassing purposes even though that is not usually the case.  I don't consider what I do to be the same as the deletion sorting that other editors do, because I'm really not sorting anything, I'm just notifying the discussion and the closing admin of the circumstances.  I don't feel that notifying the AfD of a rescue tag is any more important than deletion sorting, but at the same time I don't feel compelled or obliged to do both simultaneously.  Most of the time, by the time I get to the AfD it has already been deletion-sorted.
 * 3) Regarding understating the issue of conflicts with the ARS, I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to. I agree that I've had a lot of conflicts in the past, but I think I've done a lot to cease that activity.  If you're not familiar with me or my editing patterns, I understand that it might not be evident to you.  I can't fault you for looking into my history and finding conflicts and opposing based on that, but I can only ask you to look at more recent history to see the change.
 * 4) Regarding manifesto language, that's not my intention. I only intended to demonstrate that politics don't play a role in my decisions.  The fact that I might look wrong or stupid by voting differently from the majority doesn't enter into my thought process.  I just vote the way I think.
 * 5) Regarding recusing myself from closing rescue-tagged articles, I am sensitive to the fact that some ARS members don't like me or don't trust me, which is why I made that concession to begin with. I don't personally believe that it is required, but I understand that others might.  This is why I would like to have a brief discussion about it, to get everyone's input.  I have no intention of creating a lengthy or contention discussion about it, I'd even be fine with a straw poll.  If the consensus is that I shouldn't close rescue-tagged AfD's, then I would be fine with complying with that consensus.  Again, I personally don't think it is necessary, but if others do I can and will respect that.

Past edit history
Moved from main page since it was messing up the numbering.


 * {|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!Snottywong: "I'm just expressing my opinion. If people don't like it, that's their problem. They can refer to another one of my userboxes, which directs them to Don't-give-a-fuckism." 10 June 2010. ANI's against Snotty:
 * User:Snottywong's various types of disruption (incivility, too) 3 June 2010.
 * Snottywong's_AfD_edits. 10 June 2010.
 * "The userbox ...indicates this user's intention (which he's carried out on over 20 articles earlier this evening) to !vote to delete in any article that's been nominated for deletion, and hence for rescue." 05:08, 10 June 2010.
 * Text of userbox put up for deletion: "This user attempts to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them."
 * Snottywong's response: "I'm just expressing my opinion. If people don't like it, that's their problem. They can refer to another one of my userboxes, which directs them to Don't-give-a-fuckism." 10 June 2010."
 * Requests for comment/Jclemens Closed by Snotty.

Bad Faith accusations and templating: ":*Comment - Sterlingpearce, tell your sockpuppetmaster that notability is not temporary."15 December 2009.
 * "Oh, and if you want to explain why you created this account solely for the purpose of commenting on this AfD, but somehow simultaneously you're not a sockpuppet, I'd be interested to hear how that works." 15 December 2009.
 * Snottywong, I'm concerned by the spam tag that you added at User talk:Rbedrosian. This user appears to be an obvious academic, who creates some of the reliable sources which we use on Wikipedia. This is the kind of editor who should be nurtured and encouraged, not slapped with a warning template. Would you please consider reverting your spam template on their page? --Elonka 00:38, 17 December 2009

Personal attacks:


 * "...you're obviously too lazy..." 03:39, 4 November 2009. Posting on talk page:
 * ...your common sense and practicality are lacking. 19:51, 27 March 2007.
 * "Andy, you would benefit from a course in grammar, because I have no idea what you're talking about." In response to: "You would benefit from a high-school class in simple logic" 1:44, 29 October 2009.

In Snotty's own words: "Seriously, this guy loves to argue for the sake of arguing."


 * As the subject of two of the attacks (re Bose) in the previous para, I feel entitled to comment here. I would certainly oppose the Snotty of 2009, when those comments were made. However I'm now happy he's no longer behaving in the same way. As to the last "course in grammar" comment, he was only giving as good as he got, and I didn't even take exception to those two comments at the time they were made. If I, the subject of these "attacks", think they're not an issue any more, I don't think that others need worry about them either. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

--Searching Snotty's talk pages from Dec 2009 to June 2010.


 * }
 * Okip  16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)