To the contrary, WP:POINT doesn't prohibit all makings of points, it only prohibits disruption to make a point, so this doesn't violate anything. Also, discussion of why something is wrong is the first step to fixing it, so discussion is certainly a good thing.
On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I added a question to the RFA.
Your comment that it's "pleasing" that it's turning into a debate on the system rather than your nomination worries me a bit because it means your nomination could be considered a violation of WP:POINT to get this discussion going, but I'll assume good faith for now. If you think the current RFA process doesn't work, I believe submitting a new process rather than nominating yourself using the process you dislike is the way to go, IMO.
Mgm
On 3/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Some of you may recall that a few months back I had a go at the RfA process (and failed, of course [1]). Well, I'm demonstrating again that I clearly don't know what's good for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
I'm losing, of course, but this time it's turning into a big discussion between the pro-RfA-system and anti-RfA-system camps. This is pleasing. While I'm not explicitly asking for your votes (although I certainly wouldn't say no to them), any replies to comments on the page would be of interest, for policy discussion's sake.
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-October/055827.html
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l