On 3/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email)
<alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
><snip>
>
>>Secondly, I'd like to point people to this post from the Wikipedia
Review:
>>
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=204&view=findpost…
>>Should we tighten things up a bit at R/D
fAdmin? Sure, it isn't wt it's
all
>>made out to be, but with admin powers in
the wrong hands it,
hypotheticaly
>speaking, could go pear-shaped.
What a fascinating, skeptical but probably justified look at the admin
creation process. Is it true that people who actually get involved in
debate and dialogue are accused of "conflict" and voted down?
Yes. Reasons for opposing me on my current RFA include posting to this
list. I've also been accused of userbox warriorism based on the fact
that I've opposed people for "having too many userboxes" (I think they
look silly), which I find quite amusing. Sad, but amusing.
While, granted, my RFA was a lifetime ago (last summer), it came right on
the heels of very deep involvement in a major debate (BCE/CE debate). The
debate was split roughly 50-50, and I was one of the major players arguing
for one position. While this was mentioned on my RFA, it only earned me one
oppose vote.
On the other hand, anyone at all interested in a successful RFA should avoid
(should have avoided) the userbox issue because it was so acrimonious. This
is the most unpleasant and divisive issue I have come across here.
Supporting one side (or opposing it) earns you automatic oppose votes from
people who feel strongly about the other side. But I don't think this is
typical of "debate and dialogue" on Wikipedia. As JzG mentioned, engagement
in this issues can help get you known. And, while, granted, active vandal
fighting can earn you adminship, intelligent and reasonable participation in
debates can earn you people's respect. If you can get people to value your
opinion even while disagreeing with you, you have a good chance of sailing
through an RFA.
What made matters worse in this case, I suspect, is the issue of voting on
the basis of userboxes. This suggests inflexibility. People who are
inflexible on issues are more likely to end up getting into wheel wars and
the like. So it's reasonable to oppose someone who opposed someone else on
the basis of their userbox position.
Ian