aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny/Bureaucr...
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny/Bureaucr...
I'm sorry, but whatever you voted in this RfA you have to agree that it is impossible to say that consensus was reached to promote when more than a hundred people opposed. There wasn't even agreement between the bureaucrats themselves! If there was ever a poster child for a "no consensus" decision, this would be it.
Apparently that core principle has been abandoned.
--Oskar
On 10/04/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but whatever you voted in this RfA you have to agree that it is impossible to say that consensus was reached to promote when more than a hundred people opposed. There wasn't even agreement between the bureaucrats themselves! If there was ever a poster child for a "no consensus" decision, this would be it. Apparently that core principle has been abandoned.
And never mind the actual question RFA is supposed to answer.
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And never mind the actual question RFA is supposed to answer.
RfA is the way we gauge how the community feels about promoting a certain person to adminship. That is what it is. It works on consensus, just like other processes on wikipedia. The community decides.
If you wish to justify this decision you can use one of two arguments: either A) consensus to promote was reached this time, or B) RfA shouldn't work on consensus, but on the opinion of the bureaucrats.
I think it is clear that A wasn't fulfilled. When more 100+ opposes something (and they aren't just morons, look at that list, there's plenty of great, great wikipedians there), that's not consensus. If you think it is, you don't know what consensus means.
And if you agree with B, well then... I don't know what to tell ya. It's one of wikipedia's core principles, so far it has been the way we run this big hunk of a website of ours. When there is such a strong opposition within the community to a decision, then we don't make that decision. Regardless of your own opinion, you should accept that.
Of course, the bureaucrats aren't beancounters, they are supposed to look at the arguments, both for and against. Some of the arguments against are undoubtedly silly (the OFFICE policy, the fact that Cyde nominated him, ...) but there is a whole lot of them that aren't. Valid arguments, voiced by some of the most respected members of our community.
David, try to disregard your own personal feelings in this case, and look on this as a cold, emotionless calculating machine. Do you think this decision was fair? Do you really think that the voices of all those who opposed should be ignored, just because they're (in your opinion) "morons"? If you use reason, and disregard the "of course Danny should be an admin" gut feeling (that can be your opinion of course, but it doesn't allow you to go against consensus), then I think the decision is clear.
--Oskar
PS. I realize that the mailing list doesn't follow the same rules as wikipedia, but please refrain from calling people "morons". We don't just have WP:NPA because it makes editing easier, we have it because personal attacks are extremely insulting and uncivil. Please refrain from using them in the future.
On 4/10/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
David, try to disregard your own personal feelings in this case, and look on this as a cold, emotionless calculating machine.
Not to disrespect you in any way, Oskar, but if your argument rests on the fact that you want Wikipedia functionaries to act as "cold emotionless calculating machines" then it probably isn't a very strong one. I would hope the Bureaucrats made their decision partly based on their own knowledge of Danny.
On 4/10/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
David, try to disregard your own personal feelings in this case, and look on this as a cold, emotionless calculating machine. Do you think this decision was fair? Do you really think that the voices of all
Isn't that exactly what we're arguing against when we denounce "wikilawyering" and "policy wonks"? Perhaps we should replace "consensus" with "informed, reasonable consensus" or even "intelligent consensus". Many of the oppose votes were just junk. The whole scenario sounds like a bunch of schools being given the power to re-appoint or sack their school principle, and they're coming up with reasons like "sometimes he's mean and makes the grade ones cry!"
To be quite honest, is there any reason why the community should even have a say in appointing admns? Why not just have candidates be vetted by bureaucrats (or some similar group if preferred)? Would the project be worse off?
I find it so annoying that people could even consider voting against Danny. I don't know the guy. But he has a huge amount of experience in Wikipedia, has worked at a very stressful job for us, and regularly contributes an enormous amount. Surely we should be asking "how can we get more people like this on the project", not "hmm, do I really trust a guy who resigned from the board and didn't tell us why??!"
Steve
On 4/10/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think this decision was fair?
Well, once you consider that many people opposed Danny for enforcing policy, not explaining why he resigned his adminship, etc., and take them out of the equation, it's pretty apparent that the numbers are in the room to promote for 'crats - and that's assuming we want the 'crats to behave as cold, calculating machines and adhere to those silly strict numbers rules we've come up with.
Do you really think that the voices of all
those who opposed should be ignored, just because they're (in your opinion) "morons"?
Well, the sad fact is, the decision to promote is a black and white one, not grey. If you look at the decision in zero-sum terms, you might say that "the voices of all those who opposed" were ignored - but if he had not been promoted you can say with equal, if not more, indignation that the voices of all those who supported were ignored.
Let's not look at it in zero-sum terms. Danny's learnt that there are a lot of people who have valid concerns about how he has wielded his blocking powers in the past, and that he may be BITEing the newbies a wee bit too much (to say the least). I hope he takes these criticisms into account and learns from them, because I personally feel that AGF and BITE remain relevant, even in the face of spammers.
Of course, there's a chance Danny may end up totally disregarding these concerns. But knowing Danny, it's doubtful that he'll do this. Danny cares too much about the project and the community that's got it this far to ignore valid concerns they may have about his conduct, and how it helps or hurts the project we all love.
If you use reason, and disregard the "of course
Danny should be an admin" gut feeling (that can be your opinion of course, but it doesn't allow you to go against consensus), then I think the decision is clear.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't agree with those who have expressed surprise and/or indignation that anyone could have the gall to oppose Danny's RfA, because there are valid and real reasons to have qualms about him being an admin, but even then, on the balance, there is a consensus to promote once you take into account the fact that many opposers are opposing for totally or near-totally invalid reasons.
Johnleemk
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:00:48 +0800, "John Lee" johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
once you consider that many people opposed Danny for enforcing policy, not explaining why he resigned his adminship, etc., and take them out of the equation, it's pretty apparent that the numbers are in the room to promote
That's how it looks to me, as well. And discounting those votes is not a rejection of those feelings, just a recognition that they should be dissociated from Danny personally. Will Danny descend from on high and OFFICE any more articles? I seriously doubt it.
I'd advise him not to do too much OTRS stuff, though. That might raise demons.
Guy (JzG)
On Apr 10, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And never mind the actual question RFA is supposed to answer.
RfA is the way we gauge how the community feels about promoting a certain person to adminship.
No. RFA is a way we gauge whether a person fulfills the basic standards of trustworthiness necessary for us to trust them with admin powers. It's not a straw poll on whether someone should become an admin. People's arbitrary opinions on how many admins we have, what admins should do, and/or any of the other insanity at, say, [[Wikipedia: Admin coaching]] were never designed to be a part of RFA.
Unfortunately, the community, over time, began to stop doing the job of answering "is this person trustworthy enough to become an admin" and began doing the job of answering "is this person the ideal admin?"
Danny's RFA is particularly egregious, as one of our oldest, most respected, and most trusted community members found themselves on the receiving end of a referendum on [[WP:OFFICE]] under the guise of an RFA. For the bureaucrats to step in and look at the RFA with an eye towards the actual question it's supposed to answer is welcome. My only question is why it had to wait for Danny instead of any of the dozens of perfectly good Wikipedians who got screwed by the insanity that is RFA before now.
-Phil
On 4/10/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
No. RFA is a way we gauge whether a person fulfills the basic standards of trustworthiness necessary for us to trust them with admin powers. It's not a straw poll on whether someone should become an admin. People's arbitrary opinions on how many admins we have, what admins should do, and/or any of the other insanity at, say, [[Wikipedia: Admin coaching]] were never designed to be a part of RFA.
Exactly. I remember it being stated somewhere that I read early on in my Wikipedia career that the admin tools were what we would give every editor in the ideal world - but they were simply, and unfortunately, too destructive to give to everyone without first doing a simple trustworthiness test.
Every editor who has been around for a little while to learn the ropes and shown no tendency to do crazy things if given the admin bit should be granted it. A few words of caution and a few pages of basic rules of thumb should exist to guide the new admin in the use of the facilities, and ideally someone should keep an eye on new admins for a short while to make sure they understand what they're doing.
Admins who show a tendency to do crazy things with the admin bit should have it removed forthwith. Making mistakes is definitely allowed; it's whether you learn from them and respond to them appropriately.
-Matt
On 4/10/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
No. RFA is a way we gauge whether a person fulfills the basic standards of trustworthiness necessary for us to trust them with admin powers. It's not a straw poll on whether someone should become an admin. People's arbitrary opinions on how many admins we have, what admins should do, and/or any of the other insanity at, say, [[Wikipedia: Admin coaching]] were never designed to be a part of RFA.
Unfortunately, the community, over time, began to stop doing the job of answering "is this person trustworthy enough to become an admin" and began doing the job of answering "is this person the ideal admin?"
ALERT! Here comes another one of my goofy ideas.
If the Bureaucrats themselves feel as you do that the question to answer in an RFA is whether or not a candidate can be trusted with the tools, then one way for them to really drive the point home to those "voting" for "other reasons" is to pick a potentially controversial RFA, that is one that is likely to generate a lot of "opposes", and move any "votes" (support or oppose) that do not address the issue of trust to the talk page.
OK, fireproof underwear on, flame away.
On 4/10/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If the Bureaucrats themselves feel as you do that the question to answer in an RFA is whether or not a candidate can be trusted with the tools, then one way for them to really drive the point home to those "voting" for "other reasons" is to pick a potentially controversial RFA, that is one that is likely to generate a lot of "opposes", and move any "votes" (support or oppose) that do not address the issue of trust to the talk page.
Sure, or equivalently, state "All oppose !voters must state explicitly 'I do not trust X. Allowing him/her to have an admin bit would be dangerous for the project.' Any non-complying !votes will not be counted."
Back in reality, is there somewhere we could have a vote of no confidence in the RfA mechanism?
Steve
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Back in reality, is there somewhere we could have a vote of no confidence in the RfA mechanism?
Haven't people been doing that one way or the other for months now? No matter how many ways people invent to do it, though, the status quo camp is attracting hangers-on by the drove who promptly torpedo all attempts to move away from the broken model.
On 10/04/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Back in reality, is there somewhere we could have a vote of no confidence in the RfA mechanism?
Haven't people been doing that one way or the other for months now? No matter how many ways people invent to do it, though, the status quo camp is attracting hangers-on by the drove who promptly torpedo all attempts to move away from the broken model.
Would that every RFA get the attention the bureaucrats gave Danny's.
I hope the 'crats will apply the rule "relevant criteria only" to objects from now on, as irrelevant objections have been the greatest problem so far.
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Would that every RFA get the attention the bureaucrats gave Danny's.
I hope the 'crats will apply the rule "relevant criteria only" to objects from now on, as irrelevant objections have been the greatest problem so far.
Bureaucrats burn out. Replacements will either have to lie in their RFB or commit to not making decision in that way.
On 10/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Would that every RFA get the attention the bureaucrats gave Danny's. I hope the 'crats will apply the rule "relevant criteria only" to objects from now on, as irrelevant objections have been the greatest problem so far.
Bureaucrats burn out. Replacements will either have to lie in their RFB or commit to not making decision in that way.
Or have the relevance criterion applied to those bureaucrats. Or select bureaucrats another way, e.g. Cabal appointment. You're positing a broken RFB as an immovable block; it's not.
The bureaucrats in this case used a form of decision that was pretty much the only alternative to razing RFA to the ground. (If they'd come to a consensus of "no" rather than "yes", it would have been as good a decision.)
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Or have the relevance criterion applied to those bureaucrats.
Won't work the objections will be relevant.
Or select bureaucrats another way, e.g. Cabal appointment. You're positing a broken RFB as an immovable block; it's not.
War against the community? It's been tried.
On 4/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Bureaucrats burn out.
Heretical idea - why not elect all the bureaucrats anew each year like Stewards on meta.wikimedia.org? (they can stand for re-election if they want)
On 4/10/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Bureaucrats burn out.
Heretical idea - why not elect all the bureaucrats anew each year like Stewards on meta.wikimedia.org? (they can stand for re-election if they want)
Nothing heretical about it, but it doesn't help get more people to volunteer for the job...
On 4/10/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Heretical idea - why not elect all the bureaucrats anew each year like Stewards on meta.wikimedia.org? (they can stand for re-election if they want)
Nothing heretical about it, but it doesn't help get more people to volunteer for the job...
There doesn't seem to be any lack of bureaucrat candidates. Going by previous standards Mackensen would be rejected at the current level of support. Looking back over previous RfBs, quite a lot of votes are of the kind "We don't need any more bureaucrats". I don't think finding candidates is going to be the problem; the opposite problem (excess frivolous candidates) is the more likely.
George Herbert wrote:
On 4/10/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Bureaucrats burn out.
Heretical idea - why not elect all the bureaucrats anew each year like Stewards on meta.wikimedia.org? (they can stand for re-election if they want)
Nothing heretical about it, but it doesn't help get more people to volunteer for the job.
At least it supports the perpetuation of mindless and useless precesses.
Ec
On 4/10/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Bureaucrats burn out.
Heretical idea - why not elect all the bureaucrats anew each year like Stewards on meta.wikimedia.org? (they can stand for re-election if they want)
-- Sam Blacketer London E15
That is a great idea. We probably should not have the same for admins, but again _this makes sense_.
~~~~
On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:27 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
That is a great idea. We probably should not have the same for admins, but again _this makes sense_.
That's a terrible idea.
If we continually re-elected bureaucrats than the current idiocy that dominates RFA would become entrenched on the bureaucrat level.
-Phil
On 4/10/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:27 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
That is a great idea. We probably should not have the same for admins, but again _this makes sense_.
That's a terrible idea.
If we continually re-elected bureaucrats than the current idiocy that dominates RFA would become entrenched on the bureaucrat level.
Big difference. Adminship is *no big deal*. Bureaucratship *is*, and we honestly don't need *that* many of them (5 @ most, correct me if I'm wrong). There aren't that many crats, and I think that fact calls for some oversight (as opposed to admins, where you have 200 busloads of them to oversee the others).
On 4/11/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 10/04/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Back in reality, is there somewhere we could have a vote of no confidence in the RfA mechanism?
Haven't people been doing that one way or the other for months now? No matter how many ways people invent to do it, though, the status quo camp is attracting hangers-on by the drove who promptly torpedo all attempts to move away from the broken model.
We've been whingeing about it. Let's formally make a vote somewhere that says "RfA is not what we want, we want something different".
Steve
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/10/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
No. RFA is a way we gauge whether a person fulfills the basic standards of trustworthiness necessary for us to trust them with admin powers. It's not a straw poll on whether someone should become an admin. People's arbitrary opinions on how many admins we have, what admins should do, and/or any of the other insanity at, say, [[Wikipedia: Admin coaching]] were never designed to be a part of RFA.
Unfortunately, the community, over time, began to stop doing the job of answering "is this person trustworthy enough to become an admin" and began doing the job of answering "is this person the ideal admin?"
ALERT! Here comes another one of my goofy ideas.
If the Bureaucrats themselves feel as you do that the question to answer in an RFA is whether or not a candidate can be trusted with the tools, then one way for them to really drive the point home to those "voting" for "other reasons" is to pick a potentially controversial RFA, that is one that is likely to generate a lot of "opposes", and move any "votes" (support or oppose) that do not address the issue of trust to the talk page.
OK, fireproof underwear on, flame away.
That sounds like a "make work" proposal. I read it as an honest suggestion. Thus, I don't agree with it, but see no reason to flame about it either.
Ec
On 10/04/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
If you wish to justify this decision you can use one of two arguments: either A) consensus to promote was reached this time, or B) RfA shouldn't work on consensus, but on the opinion of the bureaucrats.
Here you state a false dichotomy. It was counted on relevant opposes, as noted in the bureaucrats' discussion - it's an RFA on Danny, not a referendum on the powers of a Foundation staffer on en:wp.
Does it count as "consensus" when you get opposes like: "# Oppose - As a Johnny come lately member of the community I have many (as yet to be expressed) opinions about many wikipedia policies. I thank Danny for his overall contributions and participation and consider him a valuable member of the community. Since I am allowed to express a vote and an opinion, I choose to express opposition as a vote in opposition of many of the things Danny stands for as a representative of Wikipedia (which isn't personal - it's more structural). I'd rather see things go in a lot of different directions, and this is one humble mechanism for expressing myself about wikipedia. If that's not kosher for RfA's, lemme know."
i.e., "Oh, there's a Power? I'd better Fight it, then."
Note that the above-linked page with the bureaucrats' decision has a talk page attached. I'm not a 'crat and can't speak for them. They do appear to be answering questions there.
Note also that all 'crats that weren't recused supported promotion. You need to consider the possibility that you are in fact completely wrong, rather than them being completely wrong..
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And never mind the actual question RFA is supposed to answer.
RFA is kinda set up to work on the basis that the person has not been an admin before.
On 4/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And never mind the actual question RFA is supposed to answer.
RFA is kinda set up to work on the basis that the person has not been an admin before.
Absolutely. That idea has been floating around in my head for a while, but it hadn't managed to crystallise.
Guettarda wrote:
On 4/10/07, geni wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard wrote:
And never mind the actual question RFA is supposed to answer.
RFA is kinda set up to work on the basis that the person has not been an admin before.
Absolutely. That idea has been floating around in my head for a while, but it hadn't managed to crystallise.
One feature of the process as applied to Danny is that he has had time to make enemies, and many of them are particularly unforgiving. Anyone who takes a principled stand takes the risk of making enemies. I voted in support of Danny, but I admit that I had to pause to think about it.
In the present circumstances the person most likely to win adminship is the person who dutifully does what he's told. He throws spears at perceived trolls, vandals, and the civilly disobedient; he throws soft candy at ineffectively compliant newbies. He lives in a ticky-tacky homepage. He is the kind of liberal that the progressives of the 1960s used to complain about. His impeccable lawn is dilligently protected from any imaginative weeds that might disrupt his orderly world and cause change. When baking he prefers using powdered eggs because they never need to be broken.
When a Danny moves into this idyllic suburb, and questions these values, the neighborhood phagocytes go into action.
Ec
On 10/04/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for
disposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny/Bureaucr...
I'm sorry, but whatever you voted in this RfA you have to agree that it is impossible to say that consensus was reached to promote when more than a hundred people opposed. There wasn't even agreement between the bureaucrats themselves! If there was ever a poster child for a "no consensus" decision, this would be it.
Apparently that core principle has been abandoned.
--Oskar
Consensus is just a weasel word on Wikipedia that at various times allows people to either a) ignore majority, often even significant majority votes "we don't have consensus" and at other times b) ignore minority objections, sometimes significant minorities "too bad you object - we have consensus".
In all cases, those who are persistent, or more agressive Wikipedians commanding more authority for themselves, get their own way.
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it is not anything else sensible instead. People are deluding themselves if they think there's a consistent process for decision making from everything to RFA, policy, deletions, article content, heck - even NPOV is acheived by a mish-mash of votes/debate/looking for "consensus" - of course the result usually is just whatever group shouts loudest. It does work a lot of the time because often the majority of those involved will carry the decision despite the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" line, but really there isn't even a broken decision-making mechanism. There's usually no consistent mechanism at all.
Zoney
on 4/10/07 2:15 PM, Zoney at zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is just a weasel word on Wikipedia that at various times allows people to either a) ignore majority, often even significant majority votes "we don't have consensus" and at other times b) ignore minority objections, sometimes significant minorities "too bad you object - we have consensus".
In all cases, those who are persistent, or more agressive Wikipedians commanding more authority for themselves, get their own way.
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it is not anything else sensible instead. People are deluding themselves if they think there's a consistent process for decision making from everything to RFA, policy, deletions, article content, heck - even NPOV is acheived by a mish-mash of votes/debate/looking for "consensus" - of course the result usually is just whatever group shouts loudest. It does work a lot of the time because often the majority of those involved will carry the decision despite the "Wikipedia is not a democracy" line, but really there isn't even a broken decision-making mechanism. There's usually no consistent mechanism at all.
Very well put, Zoney & right on! You are presenting to an aspect of the very culture of Wikipedia. But the issue of Wikipedia culture seems to be radioactive here: nobody seems to want to touch it.
Marc Riddell
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
There is no reason to resort to namecalling ("morons"). This particular RfA was closed very professionally and gave good reasons. What we have to avoid is an opposite extreme: admins & bureaucrats closing AfDs and RfAs merely based on their own opinion, and those of people they like. Whenever admins or bureaucrats apply discretion in interpreting process outcomes, they should ideally - not act alone - provide a clear justification to the community.
That reduces the risk of one man crusades and increases community buy-in. The opposite scenario deterioratres relationships between admins/bureaucrats and regular users, and makes people feel that their opinion is worthless. I have seen that happen in other wiki communities. David, sometimes I am concerned that you are pushing exactly in that direction by resorting to bombastic rhetoric and vocal indignation over reasoned arguments and analysis. We need less of the former and more of the latter.
On Apr 10, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
There is no reason to resort to namecalling ("morons").
There's a good reason.
People who are hell-bent on clogging the project with terrible and destructive ideas in a stubborn, heavy-handed way that is anathema to our basic principles should be driven off. We have policy controls to help in this task, but nothing does the job quite like a culture that is actively and openly hostile to their ways.
-Phil
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
There is no reason to resort to namecalling ("morons").
on 4/10/07 10:05 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There's a good reason.
People who are hell-bent on clogging the project with terrible and destructive ideas in a stubborn, heavy-handed way that is anathema to our basic principles should be driven off.
Driven off? Sound pretty heavy handed to me.
We have policy controls to help in this task, but nothing does the job quite like a culture that is actively and openly hostile to their ways.
But a culture that needs to resort to name calling to achieve its goals couldn't have much else to recommend it.
Marc Riddell
On 4/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
There is no reason to resort to namecalling ("morons").
on 4/10/07 10:05 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There's a good reason.
People who are hell-bent on clogging the project with terrible and destructive ideas in a stubborn, heavy-handed way that is anathema to our basic principles should be driven off.
Driven off? Sound pretty heavy handed to me.
We have policy controls to help in this task, but nothing does the job quite like a culture that is actively and openly hostile to their ways.
But a culture that needs to resort to name calling to achieve its goals couldn't have much else to recommend it.
On the other hand, let's not get carried away.
David was not using "moron" against an individual or even a constituency. It was simply a flippant commentary about the tyranny of the masses.
It was not a personal attack, and should not trigger the same outrage.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
There is no reason to resort to namecalling ("morons").
on 4/10/07 10:05 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There's a good reason.
People who are hell-bent on clogging the project with terrible and destructive ideas in a stubborn, heavy-handed way that is anathema to our basic principles should be driven off.
Driven off? Sound pretty heavy handed to me.
We have policy controls to help in this task, but nothing does the job quite like a culture that is actively and openly hostile to their ways.
On 4/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
But a culture that needs to resort to name calling to achieve its goals couldn't have much else to recommend it.
on 4/11/07 12:09 AM, Andrew Lih at andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, let's not get carried away.
David was not using "moron" against an individual or even a constituency. It was simply a flippant commentary about the tyranny of the masses.
It was not a personal attack, and should not trigger the same outrage.
To be perfectly clear, I understood David's use of it; I was referring to Phil's reference to it. I felt he was implying that it was OK to use such terms offensively. Perhaps I misunderstood Phil's meaning.
Marc
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
aaaaand, one-moron-one-vote is, if not dead, certainly marked for disposal:
There is no reason to resort to namecalling ("morons").
I concede that David's representation of reality was somewhat stark.
This particular RfA was closed very professionally and gave good reasons. What we have to avoid is an opposite extreme: admins & bureaucrats closing AfDs and RfAs merely based on their own opinion, and those of people they like. Whenever admins or bureaucrats apply discretion in interpreting process outcomes, they should ideally
- not act alone
- provide a clear justification to the community.
It was a courageous decision that flies in the face of the chattering classes. Let the bureaucrats as a group by themselves make and apply a preliminary decision. A vote would be needed only if the community wants to appeal that decision.
That reduces the risk of one man crusades and increases community buy-in. The opposite scenario deterioratres relationships between admins/bureaucrats and regular users, and makes people feel that their opinion is worthless. I have seen that happen in other wiki communities. David, sometimes I am concerned that you are pushing exactly in that direction by resorting to bombastic rhetoric and vocal indignation over reasoned arguments and analysis. We need less of the former and more of the latter.
Having everybody vote on everything is clulessocracy. All other wikis are smaller than this one, and whatever system is part of your vision for them is just not scaling well. The bureaucrats gained their position through our already imperfect system. Shouldn't that suggest that there was already some broad trust of them in the community? If so, then let them get on with the job.
This madness that purports to be democracy has a really dark side. It has allowed petty street gangs to set up camp around some policy where they resist all efforts to change the system. In general society there is indeed a widespread alienation from the political process, and a feeling in "democratic" as well as dictatorial regimes that governments will do what they damn well please without regard to public opinion or need. This is not solved by letting local warlords run rampant. Rebuilding of trust is necessary. For us that means that people in positions of leadership need to be free to do their jobs while needing to be responsiive to the community. Their actions need to be transparent, but community members also need to look at issues in a context greater than what is encompassed by a narrow personal world view. Community members also need to realize that full democratic participation in every decision is a physical impossibility.
It's not just RfA that needs reform; it's the entire decision making process that needs review.
Ec
On 4/10/2007 9:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
The opposite scenario deterioratres relationships between admins/bureaucrats and regular users, and makes people feel that their opinion is worthless.
Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
--Chris
on 4/11/07 4:33 PM, Christopher G. Parham at cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
HOLY HELL! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!?!!
Marc Riddell :-(
On 4/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/11/07 4:33 PM, Christopher G. Parham at cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
HOLY HELL! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!?!!
Gosh, I certainly hope so!
on 4/11/07 4:33 PM, Christopher G. Parham at cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
On 4/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
HOLY HELL! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!?!!
on 4/13/07 8:05 AM, Tony Sidaway at tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh, I certainly hope so!
Tony,
If I interpreted your response correctly, my question is this:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
Marc Riddell
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be "non-sequitur".
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
on 4/13/07 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be "non-sequitur".
Thanks, Ron, and you're right. Some may see this as nitpicky, but this is a crucial distinction. "Worthless" is a powerful word when used in reference to any aspect of a person.
As to your example, their response of "Scorpio" in that situation could be met with "huh?" :-)
Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
on 4/13/07 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be "non-sequitur".
Thanks, Ron, and you're right. Some may see this as nitpicky, but this is a crucial distinction. "Worthless" is a powerful word when used in reference to any aspect of a person.
As to your example, their response of "Scorpio" in that situation could be met with "huh?" :-)
Okay, let's get nitpicky. If we assume for the sake of discussion that their response of "Scorpio" is not worthless, we are assuming that it is worth something. What exactly would such a response be worth? What value would it have?
For the record, I maintain that it would add nothing, would contribute no value, and would be, in fact, worthless.
- -- Sean Barrett | Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change. sean@epoptic.com |
On 13/04/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Okay, let's get nitpicky. If we assume for the sake of discussion that their response of "Scorpio" is not worthless, we are assuming that it is worth something. What exactly would such a response be worth? What value would it have? For the record, I maintain that it would add nothing, would contribute no value, and would be, in fact, worthless.
It's good they feel they can participate, it's bad the response itself is not worth a lot and possibly counterproductive. We want to stem the second but not so harshly it spoils the first.
- d.
On 13/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/13/07 10:31 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's good they feel they can participate, it's bad the response itself is not worth a lot and possibly counterproductive. We want to stem the second but not so harshly it spoils the first.
Yes!
Wikipedia is excellent training grounds for superhuman patience with blithering stupidity. I fear I am still working on it.
- d.
on 4/13/07 10:31 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's good they feel they can participate, it's bad the response itself is not worth a lot and possibly counterproductive. We want to stem the second but not so harshly it spoils the first.
On 13/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes!
on 4/14/07 1:44 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is excellent training grounds for superhuman patience with blithering stupidity. I fear I am still working on it.
David,
Fear not. For, like me, I hope you never stop working on it.
As for me, I have learned to look for the creativity in the stupidity. This way I can at least get something worthwhile from the experience.
(And, sometimes I even come away from the experience rubbing my jaw in painful admiration ;-) )
Marc
on 4/13/07 10:27 AM, Sean Barrett at sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell stated for the record:
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
on 4/13/07 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman at ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be "non-sequitur".
Thanks, Ron, and you're right. Some may see this as nitpicky, but this is a crucial distinction. "Worthless" is a powerful word when used in reference to any aspect of a person.
As to your example, their response of "Scorpio" in that situation could be met with "huh?" :-)
Okay, let's get nitpicky. If we assume for the sake of discussion that their response of "Scorpio" is not worthless, we are assuming that it is worth something. What exactly would such a response be worth? What value would it have?
For the record, I maintain that it would add nothing, would contribute no value, and would be, in fact, worthless.
And also for the record, it is still my belief that every opinion - like every person - has some value. And to use the word "worthless" in any reference to any aspect of a person is hurtful.
I'm simply trying to advocate caution when using the word. It is rhetoric like that which can harm relationships and make productive communication impossible.
Marc
On Apr 13, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be "non-sequitur".
I'd go with patent nonsense. Which is, what, A1? A3?
-Phil
From: Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide! Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:36:11 -0400
On Apr 13, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
Worthless no but perhaps irrelevant to a particular issue. If somebody voted "oppose" in an RFA because the nominee is a "Scorpio", the opinion might not be "worthless" but it would definitely be "non-sequitur".
I'd go with patent nonsense. Which is, what, A1? A3?
-Phil
G1. Sounds about right. I've always liked applying CSD criteria to ideas.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Match.com - Click Here To Find Singles In Your Area Today! http://msnuk.match.com/
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/11/07 4:33 PM, Christopher G. Parham at cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
On 4/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
HOLY HELL! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!?!!
on 4/13/07 8:05 AM, Tony Sidaway at tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh, I certainly hope so!
Tony,
If I interpreted your response correctly, my question is this:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
If their opinions are worthless, and as a result of this they recognise this and develop more persuasive, reasonable opinions, I'd say that this is pretty much the process that you and I go through every day. It's beneficial and leads to improved thought and dialog. I am in favor of this.
on 4/11/07 4:33 PM, Christopher G. Parham at cparham@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
On 4/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
HOLY HELL! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!?!!
on 4/13/07 8:05 AM, Tony Sidaway at tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh, I certainly hope so!
On 4/13/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Tony,
If I interpreted your response correctly, my question is this:
Are you in favor of making people feel their opinions are worthless?
on 4/13/07 5:42 PM, Tony Sidaway at tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
If their opinions are worthless, and as a result of this they recognise this and develop more persuasive, reasonable opinions, I'd say that this is pretty much the process that you and I go through every day. It's beneficial and leads to improved thought and dialog. I am in favor of this.
Tony,
I am still struggling with the use of the word "worthless". If it is used in relation to a person, it can be the button that shuts down any further constructive communication with that person. If we could eliminate that word from the equation, and perhaps substitute a healthier one, I believe we would find we basically agree.
Many, many persons struggle with self-concepts; and one of these self-concepts is self-worth. They also associate everything to do with themselves - from their looks, to their income and job title, to their education and intelligence (to cite just a few) - to this concept of self-worth. Therefore, when such a person hears their opinion is "worthless" they read this emotionally as "you are worthless" - and this is painful.
You are right, I challenge peoples' opinions of themselves every single day. But, in my work, they are called beliefs. A major part of my task with someone is to show them how these beliefs (opinions) of themself are getting in the way of achieving the goal: emotional health.
Marc
Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
The thing is that the vast majority of people do have good opinions and write them in good faith with the best of the project in mind. You may not always agree with them, and surely not all opinions are equally insightful, but that's a different matter.
What hurts the project is that some people choose to be dismissive of others and sometimes plain offencive.
Oleg
On Apr 11, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Oleg Alexandrov wrote:
The thing is that the vast majority of people do have good opinions and write them in good faith with the best of the project in mind. You may not always agree with them, and surely not all opinions are equally insightful, but that's a different matter.
There are large aspects of Wikipedia ttat are dominated by people's whose opinions should be discounted completely as the destructive idiocy that they are. RFA and AFD are chief among them. These opinions are generally offered in good faith, but they are not good opinions. They are bad opinions. They should be extirpated from Wikipedia's infrastructure.
I have no use whatsoever for the opinions on adminship of someone who believes Danny should not be an admin based on their disagreement with WP:OFFICE as a policy. The project has no use for those opinions. They are even more useless than a substub Pokemon article. -Phil
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:12:41 -0400, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I have no use whatsoever for the opinions on adminship of someone who believes Danny should not be an admin based on their disagreement with WP:OFFICE as a policy. The project has no use for those opinions. They are even more useless than a substub Pokemon article.
Wow, that's harsh. But probably fair.
Guy (JzG)
on 4/11/07 6:12 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There are large aspects of Wikipedia ttat are dominated by people's whose opinions should be discounted completely as the destructive idiocy that they are.
These opinions are generally offered in good faith, but they are not good opinions. They are bad opinions. They should be extirpated from Wikipedia's infrastructure.
And this must be taken and seen strictly as your opinion of their opinions - nothing more.
And if you must be "discounting" something, make sure it is the person's opinions you are "discounting" and not the person themself.
I have no use whatsoever for the opinions on adminship of someone who believes Danny should not be an admin based on their disagreement with WP:OFFICE as a policy. The project has no use for those opinions.
To be truly called a "project", it must have room for all opinions - whether you agree with them or not.
Marc Riddell
On 11/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/11/07 6:12 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I have no use whatsoever for the opinions on adminship of someone who believes Danny should not be an admin based on their disagreement with WP:OFFICE as a policy. The project has no use for those opinions.
To be truly called a "project", it must have room for all opinions - whether you agree with them or not.
Yes, but it need not - in fact must not - have them breaking stuff.
Do we keep bad content to avoid hurting the contributor's feelings? No, we do not. Why not?
- d.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 06:53:19PM -0400, Marc Riddell wrote:
To be truly called a "project", it must have room for all opinions - whether you agree with them or not.
Marc Riddell
Patent nonsense. Must we have room for the opinion that Wikipedia and all its mirrors and forks should be destroyed and all its editors imprisoned?
There is absolutely nothing in any sane definition of the word "project" that states it must include all opinions, no matter how hostile to the project or how brain-damaged its producer.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 06:53:19PM -0400, Marc Riddell wrote:
To be truly called a "project", it must have room for all opinions - whether you agree with them or not.
Marc Riddell
on 4/11/07 8:06 PM, sean@epoptic.com at sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Patent nonsense. Must we have room for the opinion that Wikipedia and all its mirrors and forks should be destroyed and all its editors imprisoned?
There is absolutely nothing in any sane definition of the word "project" that states it must include all opinions, no matter how hostile to the project or how brain-damaged its producer.
I do not hold the patent on nonsense ;-).
You are clearly confusing having an opinion and an action taken based on that opinion.
Marc
I have no use whatsoever for the opinions on adminship of someone who
believes Danny should not be an admin based on their disagreement with WP:OFFICE as a policy. The project has no use for those opinions. They are even more useless than a substub Pokemon article. -Phil
I have read all oppose votes containing the string "WP:OFFICE". Except for the sockpuppet vote which was struck down, there was no vote which opposed soley per Danny serving at WP:OFFICE.
This was mentioned indeed, but in all cases people either had gripes with other things Danny did outside of WP:OFFICE, or otherwise that Danny's behavior was not in the best of light even taking into account what he had to do at WP:OFFICE and all discounting circumstances.
I'd like to note that I am not trying to flog a dead horse here. I voted support for Danny too, and anyway I got over my relative disappointment with how proces worked in that case.
My point is that some people are too quick in dismissing other people's opinion by calling them idiots or discounting their views. This ultimately hurts more the project than some people being clueless.
on 4/11/07 6:59 PM, Oleg Alexandrov at mathbot@hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org wrote:
My point is that some people are too quick in dismissing other people's opinion by calling them idiots or discounting their views. This ultimately hurts more the project than some people being clueless.
Yes! That is my point also.
Marc
On 4/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There are large aspects of Wikipedia ttat are dominated by people's whose opinions should be discounted completely as the destructive idiocy that they are.
No, that kind of culture of hostility is what we must guard against. The opinions against WP:OFFICE were misdirected. But the concerns about the process are valid & merit open debate. They should be directed to foundation-l, the WP:OFFICE talk page, and so forth. WP:OFFICE is a very first hackish attempt to solve a complex problem. The flaws of the process have been unfairly projected at Danny, who was not the architect of the policy.
The same principle applies in many debates; for example, many AfD comments are really concerns about specific Wikipedia policies such as notability, which very much are in need of revision and reform. Direct and instruct people to talk about these problems in the right places, and you may get useful results. Telling them to shut up because they perpetuate "destructive idiocy" breeds hostility and contempt.
There are destructive idiots. When recognized, they should be banned from Wikipedia. All other users should be treated with respect and understanding. I'm worried about the idiots. But I'm more worried about the erosion of a culture of respect that has been essential to Wikipedia's success as a community.
On 4/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There are large aspects of Wikipedia ttat are dominated by people's whose opinions should be discounted completely as the destructive idiocy that they are.
on 4/11/07 8:51 PM, Erik Moeller at erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, that kind of culture of hostility is what we must guard against. The opinions against WP:OFFICE were misdirected. But the concerns about the process are valid & merit open debate. They should be directed to foundation-l, the WP:OFFICE talk page, and so forth. WP:OFFICE is a very first hackish attempt to solve a complex problem. The flaws of the process have been unfairly projected at Danny, who was not the architect of the policy.
The same principle applies in many debates; for example, many AfD comments are really concerns about specific Wikipedia policies such as notability, which very much are in need of revision and reform. Direct and instruct people to talk about these problems in the right places, and you may get useful results. Telling them to shut up because they perpetuate "destructive idiocy" breeds hostility and contempt.
There are destructive idiots. When recognized, they should be banned from Wikipedia. All other users should be treated with respect and understanding. I'm worried about the idiots. But I'm more worried about the erosion of a culture of respect that has been essential to Wikipedia's success as a community.
Yes! Wonderfully said, Erik. The key word, for me, in this is "destructive". An opinion cannot be destructive - only action based on that opinion can be.
Marc Riddell
On 4/12/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
There are large aspects of Wikipedia ttat are dominated by people's whose opinions should be discounted completely as the destructive idiocy that they are.
No, that kind of culture of hostility is what we must guard against. The opinions against WP:OFFICE were misdirected. But the concerns about the process are valid & merit open debate. They should be directed to foundation-l, the WP:OFFICE talk page, and so forth. WP:OFFICE is a very first hackish attempt to solve a complex problem. The flaws of the process have been unfairly projected at Danny, who was not the architect of the policy.
The same principle applies in many debates; for example, many AfD comments are really concerns about specific Wikipedia policies such as notability, which very much are in need of revision and reform. Direct and instruct people to talk about these problems in the right places, and you may get useful results. Telling them to shut up because they perpetuate "destructive idiocy" breeds hostility and contempt.
There are destructive idiots. When recognized, they should be banned from Wikipedia. All other users should be treated with respect and understanding. I'm worried about the idiots. But I'm more worried about the erosion of a culture of respect that has been essential to Wikipedia's success as a community.
Erik enunciates quite well the phenomenon you see in RfA. It's the same that you see in U.S. politics -- a bunch of single issue litmus tests that wind up being the focus of the candidate. Some care most about WP:OFFICE, some about free content, some about notability, some about speedy deletion, some about biting newbies, some about blocking policy, etc.
The union of all these individual peeves creates an incredibly high bar for the nominee and winds up creating a search for "the perfect admin," when that's not what RfA is for. What winds up happening, is the poor sod up for adminship winds up having his/her RfA being the battleground for outstanding ideological spats within the community. That acerbic slugfest is not fair to the individual who happened to stroll into the situation. Long term, it's damaging to the morale of the project and folks who should be valuable to Wikipedia.
As Phil said before:
Unfortunately, the community, over time, began to stop doing the job of answering "is this person trustworthy enough to become an admin" and began doing the job of answering "is this person the ideal admin?"
This should be etched at the top of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter]]
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Andrew Lih wrote:
Erik enunciates quite well the phenomenon you see in RfA. It's the
same that you see in U.S. politics -- a bunch of single issue litmus tests that wind up being the focus of the candidate. Some care most about WP:OFFICE, some about free content, some about notability, some about speedy deletion, some about biting newbies, some about blocking policy, etc.
The union of all these individual peeves creates an incredibly high bar for the nominee and winds up creating a search for "the perfect admin," when that's not what RfA is for. What winds up happening, is the poor sod up for adminship winds up having his/her RfA being the battleground for outstanding ideological spats within the community. That acerbic slugfest is not fair to the individual who happened to stroll into the situation. Long term, it's damaging to the morale of the project and folks who should be valuable to Wikipedia.
Each of the activities that you list yields a few enemies who then converge on the occasion of an RfA. This is more dangerous for a conscientious long term community participant than for a new person who has not yet had the opportunity to build enemies.
Ec