I post this to the working list, because I want to opine, and I want to draw some attention to what I believe is a bad trend. I've read some RFA's and the recent RFB. I asked Riana if I could use her RFB as an example. I'm not asking anyone to go support or oppose it, you all can do that on your on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
When I look at some of the opposes and Neutrals, primarily the ones by Animate and FM, I get a little confused. (regarding the KM nomination) Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy.
I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not.
Any project can use good custodians, but damn, the bar is high.
./scream
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential?
I think most things become political once they reach a certain scale. It's not a good thing, but I don't have a solution...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I know there is not a solution, however, sometimes the best way, is exposure.
./scream
I guess you get what you pay for - a number of opposes don't seem to be that weighty (KM's nom on Riana's RfB, the 'not enough participation in RfA' on Avraham's, when he's participated in 80...) and the result will be no new crats. The next time a difficult decision is made because a crat couldn't find someone to discuss an issue with inside the window, we will have only RfB voters to blame.
Nathan
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential?
I think most things become political once they reach a certain scale. It's not a good thing, but I don't have a solution...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I know there is not a solution, however, sometimes the best way, is exposure.
./scream _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you get what you pay for - a number of opposes don't seem to be that weighty (KM's nom on Riana's RfB, the 'not enough participation in RfA' on Avraham's, when he's participated in 80...) and the result will be no new crats. The next time a difficult decision is made because a crat couldn't find someone to discuss an issue with inside the window, we will have only RfB voters to blame.
Nathan
It does seem that people are making entirely too large a deal out of these RfBs -- and as Nathan said, the result will be no new crats. We're getting the blanket "don't need more crats" opposes, which frustrate me the most. What is wrong with having more crats? Doubtless in the future there will be a situation arises that requires us to have more, so why should we be shorthanded?
- GC
Well, we should trust our current crats to be able to see how strong consensus is and review opposes accordingly. That is why they were chosen right? Just one question though, when did the percentage for RfB become 90% or has it always been that way? It seems that if we lowered the bar a little, we would get more and sooner or later a lot more f these opposes would pop up along with essays about who being a crat is "no big deal".
On 29/02/2008, Nicolas Montes placebo.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we should trust our current crats to be able to see how strong consensus is and review opposes accordingly. That is why they were chosen right? Just one question though, when did the percentage for RfB become 90% or has it always been that way? It seems that if we lowered the bar a little, we would get more and sooner or later a lot more f these opposes would pop up along with essays about who being a crat is "no big deal".
I think it's been 90% for as long as RFB has existed in its current form (I don't think there was a set %age at first, of course).
On 29/02/2008, Nicolas Montes placebo.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Just one question though, when did the percentage for RfB become 90% or has it always been that way? It seems that if we lowered the bar a little, we would get more and sooner or later a lot more f these opposes would pop up along with essays about who being a crat is "no big deal".
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The 90% is silly... how can consensus be two different percentages? It can't be both a vote and consensus at the same time. People either need to admit it's basically a vote, with different requirements for RfAs and RfBs, or change it so it's the same for both. You can't have both a voting % AND consensus.
An interesting factoid: I work on three other wikis as well as English Wikipedia, and they all keep the same % for bureaucrats. I don't know why English Wikipedia is different. As I said, it's very silly, when all they do is the job of a calculator (and when they don't... guess what, it causes controversy!)
The 90% is silly... how can consensus be two different percentages? It can't be both a vote and consensus at the same time. People either need to admit it's basically a vote, with different requirements for RfAs and RfBs, or change it so it's the same for both. You can't have both a voting % AND consensus.
It's "rough consensus", which basically means supermajority with a slight weighting of votes based on reasons given. It's not a pure vote (at least, it's not meant to be), but it's certainly not consensus. We rarely get a true consensus on any Rf(A|B) - it would essentially require 100% support (there is a difference between consensus and unanimity but with a format like RfA [which discourages discussion], that difference is minimal).
An interesting factoid: I work on three other wikis as well as English Wikipedia, and they all keep the same % for bureaucrats. I don't know why English Wikipedia is different. As I said, it's very silly, when all they do is the job of a calculator (and when they don't... guess what, it causes controversy!)
The requirements for crats should certainly be higher than for admins (since crats need to be admins too). That can be done either by people being harsher in their votes, by the required percentage being higher, or a combination of the two. Since people are a lot harsher in their votes, the percentage doesn't need to be much (if at all) higher - 90% is probably a little excessive.
90% is a giant hurdle to get over, even for the best candidates. Perhaps, if the bar needs to be higher than it is for adminship (and I'm not convinced about that, since the questions being posed are different and the votes change accordingly)... Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only.
Nathan
On 29/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
90% is a giant hurdle to get over, even for the best candidates. Perhaps, if the bar needs to be higher than it is for adminship (and I'm not convinced about that, since the questions being posed are different and the votes change accordingly)... Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only.
Nathan
The bar doesn't need to be higher though. What's the reason exactly? If people fear the idea of more bcrats, they can oppose them. Otherwise they'll have to live with the fact people want to help out and will request. And, admin only? Absolutely not.
Majorly wrote:
On 29/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
90% is a giant hurdle to get over, even for the best candidates. Perhaps, if the bar needs to be higher than it is for adminship (and I'm not convinced about that, since the questions being posed are different and the votes change accordingly)... Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only.
The bar doesn't need to be higher though. What's the reason exactly? If people fear the idea of more bcrats, they can oppose them. Otherwise they'll have to live with the fact people want to help out and will request. And, admin only? Absolutely not.
The issue of whether more bcrats are needed should never be put on the shoulders of individual nominees. Objective criteria for determining the numbers of bureaucrats should be established. These could be based on such things as the size of the project, and a clear definition of when a bureaucrat is inactive. If the quota is exceeded, no nominations should be accepted for anyone at all.
Ec
On 29/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
90% is a giant hurdle to get over, even for the best candidates. Perhaps, if the bar needs to be higher than it is for adminship (and I'm not convinced about that, since the questions being posed are different and the votes change accordingly)... Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only.
Nathan
Oh please. The 'crats get the job of sorting out the tough RfAs, when the community (the majority of whom are non-admins) is not voting uniformly. They also manage CHU, which affects non-admins at least equally as admins.
Remember when adminship was no big deal? Well, we are seeing a continual creep in the "big-dealness" of adminship. Selection of those whose actions affect the community as a whole should be made by the community as a whole.
Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh I agree, but I think when we're talking about having a higher bar for RfBs (which I also don't agree with) then restricting who can vote makes more sense than changing the passing %. A % sufficient to show consensus is a % sufficient to show consensus, in other words, but if you want you can have a "consensus of trusted editors."
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
90% is a giant hurdle to get over, even for the best candidates.
Perhaps,
if the bar needs to be higher than it is for adminship (and I'm not
convinced
about that, since the questions being posed are different and the votes change accordingly)... Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only.
Nathan
Oh please. The 'crats get the job of sorting out the tough RfAs, when the community (the majority of whom are non-admins) is not voting uniformly. They also manage CHU, which affects non-admins at least equally as admins.
Remember when adminship was no big deal? Well, we are seeing a continual creep in the "big-dealness" of adminship. Selection of those whose actions affect the community as a whole should be made by the community as a whole.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Oh I agree, but I think when we're talking about having a higher bar for RfBs (which I also don't agree with) then restricting who can vote makes more sense than changing the passing %. A % sufficient to show consensus is a % sufficient to show consensus, in other words, but if you want you can have a "consensus of trusted editors."
True, but RfA/B isn't about consensus, it's about "rough consensus" (which bares next to no relation to actual consensus). We could restrict RfB to trusted editors, but you would need to define trusted editors more broadly than just admins.
On 29/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We could restrict RfB to trusted editors, but you would need to define trusted editors more broadly than just admins.
Can't think of much worse than that... way too much instruction and process creep. Let me guess, you'll next want to propose an edit count and time limit for who can vote on RfA/Bs?
On 29/02/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 29/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We could restrict RfB to trusted editors, but you would need to define trusted editors more broadly than just admins.
Can't think of much worse than that... way too much instruction and process creep. Let me guess, you'll next want to propose an edit count and time limit for who can vote on RfA/Bs?
I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying that it's not an idea I would dismiss out of hand. I agree that it's unlikely a good definition of "trusted editor" can be found.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying that it's not an idea I would dismiss out of hand. I agree that it's unlikely a good definition of "trusted editor" can be found.
Trusted Editor, n. A Wikipedia editor with the characteristic of always being correct, or in other words, always agreeing with me.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying that it's not an idea I would dismiss out of hand. I agree that it's unlikely a good> definition
of "trusted editor" can be found.
Any editor who spends time in manner that is benefiting the project as whole.
On 29/02/2008, Nicolas Montes placebo.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying that it's not an idea I would dismiss out of hand. I agree that it's unlikely a good> definition
of "trusted editor" can be found.
Any editor who spends time in manner that is benefiting the project as whole.
That's "editor" not "trusted editor" and is pretty much the suffrage requirement at the moment.
On 2/29/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
Trusted Editor, n. A Wikipedia editor with the characteristic of always being correct, or in other words, always agreeing with me.
Trusted Editor (a.k.a. "user in good standing"), n: One whose odds of being promoted or being banned are close to equal.
—C.W.
The 'crats get the job of sorting out the tough RfAs, when the community (the majority of whom are non-admins) is not voting uniformly.
Is that actually true? What is the percentage of non-admins among RfA contributors? It's certainly much lower than the percentage among the community at large.
On 01/03/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only.
Nathan
Eek!
Well, technically since all bureaucrats are admins... you could make that claim already.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps voting for RfB could be restricted to admins only.
That would gives admins (indirect) control over who can and can't become an admin. If we do that, then adminship really would be a cabal.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Well, technically since all bureaucrats are admins... you could make that claim already.
This way, you only need the support of one admin willing to promote an admin candidate that admins object to (but the community as a whole supports), and one crat willing to promote that admin to crat (given the support of the community and the objection of admins). If only admins can vote in RfB's, you need the admin community as a whole to support the willing admin's RfB.
(Did that make sense? I'm basically talking about a admin conspiracy, which is so unlikely that I have difficulty getting my head round the concept - it's still something we should aim to prevent.)
On 29/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's "rough consensus", which basically means supermajority with a slight weighting of votes based on reasons given. It's not a pure vote (at least, it's not meant to be), but it's certainly not consensus. We rarely get a true consensus on any Rf(A|B) - it would essentially require 100% support (there is a difference between consensus and unanimity but with a format like RfA [which discourages discussion], that difference is minimal).
Yeah, consensus is supposed to be a general agreement of everyone. With people passing despite serious concerns, it's hardly communal agreement.
The requirements for crats should certainly be higher than for admins
(since crats need to be admins too). That can be done either by people being harsher in their votes, by the required percentage being higher, or a combination of the two. Since people are a lot harsher in their votes, the percentage doesn't need to be much (if at all) higher - 90% is probably a little excessive.
I'm not entirely sure here, but only the RfBs that have passed have garnered over 75% of the vote (there may be an exception or two). The point is, people will be tougher on RfBs, especially knowing the % will be the same. Making it 90% (where did that number come from?) is rather unnecessarily high. I don't agree requirements should be higher for 'crats - as I've stated, their job is easier than being an admin, despite what most people would have you believe.
I'm not entirely sure here, but only the RfBs that have passed have garnered over 75% of the vote (there may be an exception or two). The point is, people will be tougher on RfBs, especially knowing the % will be the same. Making it 90% (where did that number come from?) is rather unnecessarily high. I don't agree requirements should be higher for 'crats - as I've stated, their job is easier than being an admin, despite what most people would have you believe.
A crat is also an admin. If they have less community support than would get them through RfA then they should probably be desysoped, not promoted to crat. The percentage support may not need to be higher, but the actual level of community support certainly needs to be.
On 29/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
A crat is also an admin. If they have less community support than would get them through RfA then they should probably be desysoped, not promoted to crat. The percentage support may not need to be higher, but the actual level of community support certainly needs to be.
The difference is they are being treated differently on an RfB. They shouldn't be desysopped. If they went through an RfA which is notoriously easier and failed that, then perhaps.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I post this to the working list, because I want to opine, and I want to draw some attention to what I believe is a bad trend. I've read some RFA's and the recent RFB. I asked Riana if I could use her RFB as an example. I'm not asking anyone to go support or oppose it, you all can do that on your on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
When I look at some of the opposes and Neutrals, primarily the ones by Animate and FM, I get a little confused. (regarding the KM nomination) Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy.
I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not.
Any project can use good custodians, but damn, the bar is high.
./scream
I completely agree with you. I'm disappointed in how several of these RfBs have turned out, but most especially Riana's and Neil's (pre-civility incident). Riana nominating Kelly Martin has absolutely nothing to do with how she would perform as a bureaucrat. It's not as if she would go completely rouge and promote a candidate with KM's percentage level. There's a similar issue with Neil's; people are opposing him because of his stance on re-confirmation RfAs; but do we not trust him to either vote oppose and recuse himself from closing, or close according to consensus regardless of his personal feelings?
- GC
On 29/02/2008, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
I post this to the working list, because I want to opine, and I want to draw some attention to what I believe is a bad trend. I've read some RFA's and the recent RFB. I asked Riana if I could use her RFB as an example. I'm not asking anyone to go support or oppose it, you all can do that on your on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
When I look at some of the opposes and Neutrals, primarily the ones by Animate and FM, I get a little confused. (regarding the KM nomination) Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy.
I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not.
Any project can use good custodians, but damn, the bar is high.
./scream
I completely agree with you. I'm disappointed in how several of these RfBs have turned out, but most especially Riana's and Neil's (pre-civility incident). Riana nominating Kelly Martin has absolutely nothing to do with how she would perform as a bureaucrat. It's not as if she would go completely rouge and promote a candidate with KM's percentage level. There's a similar issue with Neil's; people are opposing him because of his stance on re-confirmation RfAs; but do we not trust him to either vote oppose and recuse himself from closing, or close according to consensus regardless of his personal feelings?
- GC
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In my humble opinion, while it was pretty poor judgement to nominate someone like Kelly Martin, it doesn't show that she'd go "Oh what the heck" and promote anyway. On Meta-wiki, where I am a bureaucrat, I nominated Adambro for adminship, and it didn't go well. Now, if someone like me is going to refrain from promoting people the community think are unsuitable, I think that assuming someone like Riana would is just poor judgement on the voters' part, and would be a great shame if she wasn't successful. Maybe we need a lower promotion rate for bcrats - after all, they have an easier job than admins.
And by the way, Riana is the best candidate there (possibly along with The Rambling Man, but I don't know him so well, but he seems to be popular). It will be Wikipedia's loss if no one was promoted this time.
On 01/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Screamer wrote:
I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does
not.
Poor Kelly! People have just not learned to appreciate her refreshing bitchiness.
Ec
Kelly's attitude is not under discussion in this thread; perhaps it's best that we do not do so. It would be very big of us.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Screamer wrote:
I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not.
Poor Kelly! People have just not learned to appreciate her refreshing bitchiness.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Lets try not to call folks things like that on the list.
very respectfuly
./scream
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Screamer wrote:
I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not.
Poor Kelly! People have just not learned to appreciate her refreshing bitchiness.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I reply without reading everything in my inbox. Ignore my last.
./scream
On 3/1/08, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
When I look at some of the opposes and Neutrals, primarily the ones by Animate and FM, I get a little confused. (regarding the KM nomination) Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy.
There is nothing to be confused about. Anyone who regularly votes on anything will, sooner or later, attempt to convert their vote into power. Animate's initial response:
"I'm surprised to find myself not giving strong support, as everything I've observed from Riana has been positive. However, the Kelly Martin adminship nomination really gives me pause."
Translates basically as "Hmm, I've got some dirt on you. Convince me." Just like in the RfAs, where people routinely come up with all sorts of novel hoops for candidates to jump through - voters want to exercise their power.
My suggestion has always been the same: define objective measurements that candidates must reach, and reduce voting down to either 'they satisfy the objective measurement, or they don't". Regular voters hate power being taken out of their hands so shout down the idea.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/1/08, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
When I look at some of the opposes and Neutrals, primarily the ones by Animate and FM, I get a little confused. (regarding the KM nomination) Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy.
There is nothing to be confused about. Anyone who regularly votes on anything will, sooner or later, attempt to convert their vote into power. Animate's initial response:
"I'm surprised to find myself not giving strong support, as everything I've observed from Riana has been positive. However, the Kelly Martin adminship nomination really gives me pause."
Translates basically as "Hmm, I've got some dirt on you. Convince me." Just like in the RfAs, where people routinely come up with all sorts of novel hoops for candidates to jump through - voters want to exercise their power.
My suggestion has always been the same: define objective measurements that candidates must reach, and reduce voting down to either 'they satisfy the objective measurement, or they don't". Regular voters hate power being taken out of their hands so shout down the idea.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I always fear taking away ability from community, but this one case, may be the case where, this thing you propose, would be good for the project. I'm sure its on WT:RFA somewhere, and the community may not be ready yet, given the state of discussion there. But I concur, establishing objective criteria may not be the incorrect route.
./scream
Steve Bennett wrote:
There is nothing to be confused about. Anyone who regularly votes on anything will, sooner or later, attempt to convert their vote into power.
Power-voters, like eBay's Power-sellers to easily make a career of whatever it is that they have power about.
Animate's initial response:
"I'm surprised to find myself not giving strong support, as everything I've observed from Riana has been positive. However, the Kelly Martin adminship nomination really gives me pause."
Translates basically as "Hmm, I've got some dirt on you. Convince me." Just like in the RfAs, where people routinely come up with all sorts of novel hoops for candidates to jump through - voters want to exercise their power.
Whether one supported or opposed any individual candidates should never be accepted as a criterion for one's votes. Maybe such comments should be struck from the record of the vote.
My suggestion has always been the same: define objective measurements that candidates must reach, and reduce voting down to either 'they satisfy the objective measurement, or they don't". Regular voters hate power being taken out of their hands so shout down the idea.
Indeed.
Ec
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
My suggestion has always been the same: define objective measurements that candidates must reach, and reduce voting down to either 'they satisfy the objective measurement, or they don't". Regular voters hate power being taken out of their hands so shout down the idea.
Alternatively, have (reasonably) objective standards as to what factors the community regards as important in assessing bureaucrat candidates, to give closers better guidance on which opinions command much weight, and which are more idiosyncratic and can be accorded less weight.
I tried to do something along these lines for RFA a while back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Factors
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
And as an aside - I count 4 edits from me to Kelly's RfA. Apparently 0.012%of my edits have been heinously destructive. :o)
Didn't ya know that Kelly is Teh Antichrist whose touch is death?
The reaper is coming for me eventually then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Decem...
Stephen Bain wrote:
I tried to do something along these lines for RFA a while back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Factors
Thank you for torpedoing [[User:Factors]]'s RFA.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential?
I share some of the same concerns. To avoid quoting myself at a length that's probably too wordy for this list, I'll link my convenient blog post:
http://lunasantin.blogspot.com/2008/03/rianas-rfb-referendum-on-kelly-martin...
Avruch's RfB is also something people should look at. I haven't !voted there, but there are some comments on power relations and so on.
Frankly, if these bits weren't handed out for life, we could be a little more relaxed - right now, as I say on that RfB, we don't even know if the 'crats job will stay what it is, and if it changes, nobody will suggest everyone passes an RfB again.
The way things are now, its the difference between a Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court justice and their confirmation of a cabinet member, who has a set term. And if we let things slide, we'll get a class of editors who will choose not to get their hands dirty at all because they might irritate someone in that process who could impede thir RfA and RfB. Something like hotshots in the legal profession avoid stating opinions on controversial subjects at all costs.
RR
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Screamer scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Since when did RFA and RFB become political and not about trust and abuse potential? It seems these discussions have evolved away from that. After reading Jimbo's opinion on the matter, and this was made, what a few years back, perhaps he should go semi nilly willy.
I mean what do you have to do anyway, judge RFA, renames, bots on advice of BAG. How does kelly martins rfa nomination translate here. It does not.
./scream
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 06/03/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Avruch's RfB is also something people should look at.
Avruch isn't even an admin, let alone running for bcrat ;-) I think you meant Avraham?
Of course. I thought "Avi" didn't sound formal enough, and reached for the first expansion I could think of - and I suppose I picked "Avruch" because I was just discussing something with User:Avruch on another page....
RR
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Avruch's RfB is also something people should look at.
Avruch isn't even an admin, let alone running for bcrat ;-) I think you meant Avraham?
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l