There are just too many uninformed drive-by votes for me to continue in AfD, though, it's too contentious, the guidelines are ignored, editors make up reasons for deletion, and well-sourced articles on major topics are liable to be deletely simply because a small group of editors have never heard of some obscure world-leader Nobel laureate.
Don't forget the human factor involved here. When a person finds they actually have a voice in a crowd, they may use it simply to be heard; and to call attention to the fact that they are there.
I remember voting[1] for someone to become an administrator. It failed, with almost all opposers citing lack of project-space edits, some specifically mentioning XfDs (various deletion debates). As in, they advised him to go vote[1] on a bunch of XfDs and come back in three months.
This thread reminds me of this, because essentially he was being told to do the very thing we are complaining about now.
I am pleased to see he has so far ignored this advice. But I wonder what happens in other cases, and even whether other "aspiring administrators" see this and take it to heart before putting themselves up for RfA.
Dan
[1] Yeah, yeah. Technically they're not votes.
Dan, your client is breaking the threads in gmail.
On 1/16/07, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
There are just too many uninformed drive-by votes for me to continue in
AfD,
though, it's too contentious, the guidelines are ignored, editors make
up
reasons for deletion, and well-sourced articles on major topics are
liable
to be deletely simply because a small group of editors have never heard
of
some obscure world-leader Nobel laureate.
Don't forget the human factor involved here. When a person finds they actually have a voice in a crowd, they may use it simply to be heard; and
to
call attention to the fact that they are there.
I remember voting[1] for someone to become an administrator. It failed, with almost all opposers citing lack of project-space edits, some specifically mentioning XfDs (various deletion debates). As in, they advised him to go vote[1] on a bunch of XfDs and come back in three months.
This thread reminds me of this, because essentially he was being told to do the very thing we are complaining about now.
I am pleased to see he has so far ignored this advice. But I wonder what happens in other cases, and even whether other "aspiring administrators" see this and take it to heart before putting themselves up for RfA.
Dan
[1] Yeah, yeah. Technically they're not votes.
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 17/01/07, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote: <snip>
Dan
[1] Yeah, yeah. Technically they're not votes.
You mean !votes right. I wouldn't necessarily equate "not voting" with "!voting"... Its like a new terminology has come up to satisfy the competing "vote/dont vote" parties and the result is actually that there is no change in 99% of the cases.
Peter Ansell