On 3/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@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