On 3/30/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

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_admin… At the time, I had ~400 edits and had been on Wikipedia ~2 months. -- Jake Nelson [[en:User:Jake Nelson]]

On 3/30/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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]]

On 31/03/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Many of the ways our deletion mechanisms are used make us look irrationally deletion-happy. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

geni wrote: What's wrong with that? The details will be added a little later anyways. Ec

On 30/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've answered. I hope you don't consider it soapboxing, but it explains my feelings on the matter as best I can. 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. -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

On 30/03/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote: 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 Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:39:42 +0100, "Earle Martin" <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote: 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) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 4/3/07, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh, cool. Well, I'll get back to you. Steve

On 4/2/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.