On 22/10/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/06, Earle Martin
Whatever happened to "assume good
Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage
when acting in good faith.
So you are saying, in effect, that we should consider the people that
you describe as "paper admins" as potentially damagingly stupid? I'm
sure they'll be very happy to hear that.
exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they
influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be
positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.
The Bureaucrat is going to take them into consideration. I can comment
without even being neutral let alone supporting or opposing (I would
be ah disinterested).
If you're motivated enough to comment, you can't be disinterested, by
I don't understand what is to be taken into consideration from a
neutral comment when making a verdict (sorry, I mean "tallying
votes"). From reading my RfA, quite a few of the "neutral" votes
seemed to actually be mealy-mouthed "oppose" votes. Is the
bureaucrat's job to divine what the voters were actually trying to
The issue is the userbox wars I'm not going to go
into detail. you
will find references to those events all over the place. Suffice to
say the lesion [Freudian slip? -- Earle] learned is that people's
actions are a far better basis for figuring out what they are going
to do than what they say.
It would have helped this conversation a lot if you had deigned to
mention "the userbox wars" in the first place instead of making me
force it out of you like this.
specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be
supported with expository links.
"Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra
starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why
intuitionism has never been widely accepted.
Straw man. This is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not mathematics.