Hi all, I've got a few questions. I floated the idea of adding a new CSD criteria in the admin channel yesterday to deal with April Fools hoax articles, but was told CSD G1 (patent nonsense) would take care of them. Is that necessarily right, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that some of last year's hoaxes had to go through (V/A?)FD?
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.
--NSLE
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Hi all, I've got a few questions. I floated the idea of adding a new CSD criteria in the admin channel yesterday to deal with April Fools hoax articles, but was told CSD G1 (patent nonsense) would take care of them. Is that necessarily right, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that some of last year's hoaxes had to go through (V/A?)FD?
Oh dear, I can just see "Jokes for Deletion" now, with plenty of "nf, d." (not funny, delete).
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
On 3/13/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I've got a few questions. I floated the idea of adding a new CSD criteria in the admin channel yesterday to deal with April Fools hoax articles, but was told CSD G1 (patent nonsense) would take care of them. Is that necessarily right, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that some of last year's hoaxes had to go through (V/A?)FD?
Maybe but we can always kick stuff over to the wikipedia namespace.
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.
--NSLE
Pretty much every worse case senario when it comes to admin abuse has happened (normly by acident) we have ways of dealing with it.
-- geni
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.
Supposing their plan worked, and they didn't slip up, they would have one or maybe two admin accounts in a few month's time. So what? The "good guys" have:
- Jimbo - The Board - The developers - >500 admins
on their side. Even if they *did* secure an Arbcom spot, it would not greatly affect things; at some point they would start carrying out their Evil Plan of Doom (TM) and would be forced to recuse themselves from most cases they hoped to influence.
Besides which, if we get a few thousand good edits, and a few half-decent admins (even if they *do* turn out to be evil) for a year, who ultimately benefits? WE do!
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&p=1214 > 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?
Steve
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:16:21 +0100, you wrote:
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?
No. Not in my case, anyway. In fact, my getting involved in debate was cited as a reason for support. Guy (JzG)
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.
Oh, and apparantly I'm a reincarnation of Ed Poor (not that either of us believe in reincarnation); based on what I said last time (which I have denounced since), I'm going to go on a one-man crusade through AFD and upset all the process wonks.
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
Guettarda wrote:
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.
I agree with this advice completely - I experienced it myself in my RFA and it's definitely true.
Chris
On 3/13/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The difference is that there was never any chance of that issue being fought over at an admin vs admin level. In that exchange it didn't matter much if you were an admin or not. This time around there has been far more direct admin admin conflict with both deletion and protection being used by admins trying to get their way. Thus it makes no sense to allow people who have actively opposed your position to have an admin flag.
The same happened to a lesser degree with the inclusionist/deletion conflict.
-- geni
Wow, inclusionist/deletionist seems like a quaint, remembered bump in the road compared to the Userbox Wars.
k
On 3/13/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The difference is that there was never any chance of that issue being fought over at an admin vs admin level. In that exchange it didn't matter much if you were an admin or not. This time around there has been far more direct admin admin conflict with both deletion and protection being used by admins trying to get their way. Thus it makes no sense to allow people who have actively opposed your position to have an admin flag.
The same happened to a lesser degree with the inclusionist/deletion conflict.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's somehow related to Parkinson's Law. Relatively speaking, the Userbox War was the lesser in importance; that explains why it would be more hotly debated. :-)
Ec
Katefan0 wrote:
Wow, inclusionist/deletionist seems like a quaint, remembered bump in the road compared to the Userbox Wars.
k
On 3/13/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The difference is that there was never any chance of that issue being fought over at an admin vs admin level. In that exchange it didn't matter much if you were an admin or not. This time around there has been far more direct admin admin conflict with both deletion and protection being used by admins trying to get their way. Thus it makes no sense to allow people who have actively opposed your position to have an admin flag.
The same happened to a lesser degree with the inclusionist/deletion conflict.
On 3/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's somehow related to Parkinson's Law. Relatively speaking, the Userbox War was the lesser in importance; that explains why it would be more hotly debated. :-)
I feel that you've hit on a key law of such things ;)
Don't we have a list of those somewhere?
-Matt
[[List_of_adages_named_after_people]], from Amara's Law to Wirth's Law (both laws cynical about the future of technology).
Ben
On 3/15/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's somehow related to Parkinson's Law. Relatively speaking, the Userbox War was the lesser in importance; that explains why it would be more hotly debated. :-)
I feel that you've hit on a key law of such things ;)
Don't we have a list of those somewhere?
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/03/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
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?
This bemuses me. I remember desperately casting around for some kind of conflict I'd been involved in so I could answer the RFA questions...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 3/13/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I've got a few questions. I floated the idea of adding a new CSD criteria in the admin channel yesterday to deal with April Fools hoax articles, but was told CSD G1 (patent nonsense) would take care of them. Is that necessarily right, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that some of last year's hoaxes had to go through (V/A?)FD?
--NSLE
I assume that that's a no, and AFD is needed, then?
--NSLE