Some of you may recall that a few months back I had a go at the RfA process (and failed, of course [1]). Well, I'm demonstrating again that I clearly don't know what's good for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
I'm losing, of course, but this time it's turning into a big discussion between the pro-RfA-system and anti-RfA-system camps. This is pleasing. While I'm not explicitly asking for your votes (although I certainly wouldn't say no to them), any replies to comments on the page would be of interest, for policy discussion's sake.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-October/055827.html
I added a question to the RFA.
Your comment that it's "pleasing" that it's turning into a debate on the system rather than your nomination worries me a bit because it means your nomination could be considered a violation of WP:POINT to get this discussion going, but I'll assume good faith for now. If you think the current RFA process doesn't work, I believe submitting a new process rather than nominating yourself using the process you dislike is the way to go, IMO.
Mgm
On 3/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Some of you may recall that a few months back I had a go at the RfA process (and failed, of course [1]). Well, I'm demonstrating again that I clearly don't know what's good for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
I'm losing, of course, but this time it's turning into a big discussion between the pro-RfA-system and anti-RfA-system camps. This is pleasing. While I'm not explicitly asking for your votes (although I certainly wouldn't say no to them), any replies to comments on the page would be of interest, for policy discussion's sake.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-October/055827.html
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To the contrary, WP:POINT doesn't prohibit all makings of points, it only prohibits disruption to make a point, so this doesn't violate anything. Also, discussion of why something is wrong is the first step to fixing it, so discussion is certainly a good thing.
On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I added a question to the RFA.
Your comment that it's "pleasing" that it's turning into a debate on the system rather than your nomination worries me a bit because it means your nomination could be considered a violation of WP:POINT to get this discussion going, but I'll assume good faith for now. If you think the current RFA process doesn't work, I believe submitting a new process rather than nominating yourself using the process you dislike is the way to go, IMO.
Mgm
On 3/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Some of you may recall that a few months back I had a go at the RfA process (and failed, of course [1]). Well, I'm demonstrating again that I clearly don't know what's good for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
I'm losing, of course, but this time it's turning into a big discussion between the pro-RfA-system and anti-RfA-system camps. This is pleasing. While I'm not explicitly asking for your votes (although I certainly wouldn't say no to them), any replies to comments on the page would be of interest, for policy discussion's sake.
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2006-October/055827.html
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/30/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
To the contrary, WP:POINT doesn't prohibit all makings of points, it only prohibits disruption to make a point, so this doesn't violate anything. Also, discussion of why something is wrong is the first step to fixing it, so discussion is certainly a good thing.
Making of points is a problem if it is disruptive, I made the same point several times yesterday. I consider a big row on an RFA nomination disruptive. Discussions should be done on talk or proposal pages, not in a nomination, that's why I think it's a problem.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 3/30/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
To the contrary, WP:POINT doesn't prohibit all makings of points, it only prohibits disruption to make a point, so this doesn't violate anything. Also, discussion of why something is wrong is the first step to fixing it, so discussion is certainly a good thing.
Making of points is a problem if it is disruptive, I made the same point several times yesterday. I consider a big row on an RFA nomination disruptive. Discussions should be done on talk or proposal pages, not in a nomination, that's why I think it's a problem.
It's clear to everyone that your proposal will help to ensure that no change ever takes place.
Ec
I share MGM's concerns, but do appreciate your take on the matter.
Let me put it this way. Here's my RFA: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins...
At the time, I had ~400 edits and had been on Wikipedia ~2 months.
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
On 3/30/07, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
I share MGM's concerns, but do appreciate your take on the matter.
Let me put it this way. Here's my RFA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins...
At the time, I had ~400 edits and had been on Wikipedia ~2 months.
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
Back then the project was merely two years old. We could afford to be less picky about admins back then. Some people have gone over the top in their requirements, but how can we address that without affecting the fact the entire community has a voice in the process?
Mgm
On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Back then the project was merely two years old. We could afford to be less picky about admins back then. Some people have gone over the top in their requirements, but how can we address that without affecting the fact the entire community has a voice in the process?
1. I'd say we can afford to be less picky about admins now. 2. The community SHOULD have a voice in the process, but that's not exactly what's happening.
It's a similar issue to AFD... a certain group gets established around a section of Wikipedia, and develops rules, procedure, and norms based on the attitude of that group, which may be very different from those of the rest of the community. Then, the tasks (important to the functioning of Wikipedia) that're entrusted to them start being handled in ways that are not in Wikipedia's best interest.
(Sidenote: While Jimbo and others assert that BLP issues are our biggest PR issue (and while I can understand completely why they'd think so), in my experience, AFD has done far more damage, and has made enemies out of a lot of people who wanted to help us.)
I don't know the answer to this... it's similar to some "committee as fiefdom" tendencies I've seen in some organizations IRL. Those cases varied depending on the nature of the organization and the choices they made... essentially, they either dealt with it or were crippled by it.
Generally speaking, the ones that successfully resolved it were ones that 1) recognized the problem as something that needed to be fixed, in an active sense, and 2) empowered someone (typically their officers, but in some groups of an anti-hierarchical bent, an individual or group specially elected for this role) to specifically "deal with it", and agreed to support those thus empowered in implementing whatever remedies they suggested.
When I say "crippled by it", I mean that the organization got bogged down in internal issues, and ceased making outwardly appreciable progress towards their goal. Sometimes they didn't fix it, and lost members and momentum to a more active group... other times they recovered after a change of leadership.
Just my experience...
-- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]
Jake Nelson wrote:
(Sidenote: While Jimbo and others assert that BLP issues are our biggest PR issue (and while I can understand completely why they'd think so), in my experience, AFD has done far more damage, and has made enemies out of a lot of people who wanted to help us.)
Me Too. I have a local friend who uses Wikipedia a lot (he's a high school teacher) and I use him as an "outside view" sometimes on how Wikipedia is doing. Every couple of weeks he comes to me and tells me of the heartache of stumbling upon an article about some subject he's deeply interested in only to find an AfD banner across the top and know that it's likely going to vanish soon. He's now reluctant to look stuff up recreationally for fear of coming across more of those, and forget about actually _editing_ anything.
His most recent discovery was AfDs on stub articles about episodes of Lost that hadn't aired yet (but barring the unexpected destruction of TV as we know it soon would) on the basis of Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. That's just dumb, the pages will be recreated when the episodes air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.
On 31/03/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.
Many of the ways our deletion mechanisms are used make us look irrationally deletion-happy.
On 3/31/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
His most recent discovery was AfDs on stub articles about episodes of Lost that hadn't aired yet (but barring the unexpected destruction of TV as we know it soon would) on the basis of Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. That's just dumb, the pages will be recreated when the episodes air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.
We've had issues with people using wikipedia to distribute information about unbroadcast episodes obtained by methods other than the normal means.
geni wrote:
On 3/31/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
His most recent discovery was AfDs on stub articles about episodes of Lost that hadn't aired yet (but barring the unexpected destruction of TV as we know it soon would) on the basis of Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. That's just dumb, the pages will be recreated when the episodes air. It makes us look irrationally deletion-happy.
We've had issues with people using wikipedia to distribute information about unbroadcast episodes obtained by methods other than the normal means.
What's wrong with that? The details will be added a little later anyways.
Ec
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 3/30/07, Jake Nelson duskwave@gmail.com wrote:
I share MGM's concerns, but do appreciate your take on the matter.
Let me put it this way. Here's my RFA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins...
At the time, I had ~400 edits and had been on Wikipedia ~2 months.
Back then the project was merely two years old. We could afford to be less picky about admins back then. Some people have gone over the top in their requirements, but how can we address that without affecting the fact the entire community has a voice in the process?
That voice is only theoretical. Unless a person is able to spend a lot of time following the process it's not a meaningful voice. Suppressing the voting early doesn't help.
Ec
On 30/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I added a question to the RFA.
I've answered. I hope you don't consider it soapboxing, but it explains my feelings on the matter as best I can.
Your comment that it's "pleasing" that it's turning into a debate on the system rather than your nomination worries me a bit because it means your nomination could be considered a violation of WP:POINT to get this discussion going, but I'll assume good faith for now. If you think the current RFA process doesn't work, I believe submitting a new process rather than nominating yourself using the process you dislike is the way to go, IMO.
My intention in starting this RfA was to genuinely apply for adminship, albeit in my own fashion, because I am not afraid of openly stating what I believe in.
What I referred to as "pleasing" is that the RfA hasn't sunk like a sack full of WP:SNOWBALLs[1], but rather has demonstrated that there is a significant part of the group of RfA participants that share my sentiments, and have taken this opportunity to express themselves. To my eye, within the context of a (bona fide) RfA is the ideal place for the RfA system to examine itself, and I don't appear to be the only one who thinks so.
[1] I should apologize for my terrible habit of mixing metaphors.
On 30/03/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 30, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Earle Martin wrote:
My intention in starting this RfA was to genuinely apply for adminship, albeit in my own fashion, because I am not afraid of openly stating what I believe in.
Basically, an excellent example of [[WP:POINT]].
No, as has been clarified. I see this a lot - people upset that anyone would dare disagree with a problematic process saying "POINT POINT POINT" when anyone tries to do something about the process, and suggesting they go complain about it somewhere that won't have any effect.
Um, no.
- d.
On 30/03/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
Well, never mind that, then. Bureaucrat User:Nichalp has decided to close my RfA at halfway through, because it "does not enjoy the support of the community", even though the support votes and comments of confidence were starting to pour in. I have also received several private messages wishing me success.
I would have been quite happy for the RfA to reach the end and fail (spectacularly, perhaps). However, this feels unfair. I've raised the issue on the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:39:42 +0100, "Earle Martin" wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Bureaucrat User:Nichalp has decided to close my RfA at halfway through, because it "does not enjoy the support of the community",
A reasonable conclusion, since there was a lot of opposition to the premise of conflating a wish to change RfA with a request for adminship. I know why you did it, but it was a bad idea.
Guy (JzG)
Earle Martin wrote:
On 30/03/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
Well, never mind that, then. Bureaucrat User:Nichalp has decided to close my RfA at halfway through, because it "does not enjoy the support of the community", even though the support votes and comments of confidence were starting to pour in. I have also received several private messages wishing me success.
I would have been quite happy for the RfA to reach the end and fail (spectacularly, perhaps). However, this feels unfair. I've raised the issue on the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
I've just read through this thread, and resent that someone would have purported to close off the vote before I would even have had a chance to vote. I've added my vote, but it seems that someone is already intent on suppressing it.
Ec
On 3/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
To quote Charlie Brown, "AUGH!" I feel for you. "I see no need for the tools." is one of the worst reasons ever for voting. I keep considering requesting an admin bit, but I might hit the same hurdle. I occasionally "need the tools". I occasionally would like to rename a page in a non-trivial case, or to rename a category. I occasionally would like to edit a protected page. That's about it. I don't want to block anyone, or do some of the other things one gets "the tools" for. But who would support that platform?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
To quote Charlie Brown, "AUGH!" I feel for you. "I see no need for the tools." is one of the worst reasons ever for voting. I keep considering requesting an admin bit, but I might hit the same hurdle. I occasionally "need the tools". I occasionally would like to rename a page in a non-trivial case, or to rename a category. I occasionally would like to edit a protected page. That's about it. I don't want to block anyone, or do some of the other things one gets "the tools" for. But who would support that platform?
Steve
I would. It's the basis upon which I was given the bit (a few years back).
I haven't looked into your history, so I can't guarantee I'd vote for you (there has to be some level of discernment). But assuming you're not an obvious troublemaker, let me know when you run on such a platform, and I'll show up and vote for you.
-Rich
On 4/3/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I would. It's the basis upon which I was given the bit (a few years back).
I haven't looked into your history, so I can't guarantee I'd vote for you (there has to be some level of discernment). But assuming you're not an obvious troublemaker, let me know when you run on such a platform, and I'll show up and vote for you.
Oh, cool. Well, I'll get back to you.
Steve
On 4/2/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
To quote Charlie Brown, "AUGH!" I feel for you. "I see no need for the tools." is one of the worst reasons ever for voting.
I wholly agree. It's people who HUNGER for the tools that worry me.
-Matt
On 4/2/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
To quote Charlie Brown, "AUGH!" I feel for you. "I see no need for the tools." is one of the worst reasons ever for voting.
Don't the closing crats have the same discretion on the weight they give votes that admins closing AFDs do? The crats could change RFA a little by disregarding multiple "no need for tools" "oppose per user", WP:IDONTLIKEHIM etc. I even saw one RFA where one voter justified his oppose and the following 8 voters dittoed him.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/30/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2
To quote Charlie Brown, "AUGH!" I feel for you. "I see no need for the tools." is one of the worst reasons ever for voting. I keep considering requesting an admin bit, but I might hit the same hurdle. I occasionally "need the tools". I occasionally would like to rename a page in a non-trivial case, or to rename a category. I occasionally would like to edit a protected page. That's about it. I don't want to block anyone, or do some of the other things one gets "the tools" for. But who would support that platform?
Ditto. Occasional need is still a need.
Ec