After reading David Gerard's post "RFA has gone weird"[1] two weeks back, I decided on a whim to nominate myself for adminship. [2] My principle was that I would largely ignore the existing process for the calcified barnacle that it is and apply a no-nonsense stance towards self-important questioning. The process has just closed, and I was of course unsuccessful. I would note that I did not enter into this process with the realistic expectation of success. (Although I was pleased to discover that I polled almost as many positive votes as negative, most of which seemed to agree with my take on the situation.)
What I learnt from reading (and occasionally replying to) comments were:
1) ZOMG how dare you not answer the questions??!!1!!1 2) One has to have "a specific reason" for wanting admin tools. Being generally concerned for the good of the project is not enough to satisfy the razor minds of the RfA voters. 3) Editcountitis is actually a mindset of self-improvement, not a pointless obsession. You must have as many edits as is humanly possible before even considering being an admin. ("Storkk" lays it out straight: "390 mainspace edits isn't really evidence of gnoming. I am really looking for something like 3000 - 4000.") 4) You must participate in all existing processes whether you like it or not. You must also get into discussions with people on their talk pages. Why? Shut up with your questions already. You just have to. I don't qualify, notes "(aereopagitica)", because I have "less than 100 XfD discussions participated in and less than 50 user Talk contributions". 5) Answering questions, and replying to critical comments, bluntly and to the point is "arrogant", "contemptuous", "insulting", "proud", and "incivility of [a high] magnitude". Also symptomatic of needing "self-improvement" and "a thicker skin", advises "Dlohcierekim". 6) Life as an admin is a hellish, Kafka-esque nightmare of continuous inquisition from a swollen, all-powerful bureaucracy. ("[W]hat you experience here is only a taste of what one will face as an admin", comments "Physicq210".) 7) It is somehow useful for people to cast a "neutral vote", rather than just leaving a comment, which is of equivalent logical value. 8) Despite there being over a thousand administrators already, one bad egg is enough to cause havoc, disaster, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. The solution to this is obviously to keep the number of administrators as small as possible, thus maintaining the status quo and preventing more potential bad people from becoming admins. 9) Even stating "I promise not to go batshit" and signing it with your real name is not enough to sway the high muck-a-mucks. Consider taking classes in advanced boot-licking before responding to comments. ("[C]andidate is... plainly in that class of admin who would immediately set out causing grief and bloodshed.", declares "Splash".) 10) This is all going to go on your permanent record, son. Don't let your mouth write a check that your butt can't cash. ("Would recommend not returning to RfA in future", adds "Splash", ominously.)
So I guess it's back to the edit mines for this particular peon....
[1] http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054960.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin
You wrote:
After reading David Gerard's post "RFA has gone weird"[1] two weeks back, I decided on a whim to nominate myself for adminship. [2] My principle was that I would largely ignore the existing process for the calcified barnacle that it is and apply a no-nonsense stance towards self-important questioning...
What a marvelous experiment! Well done, very well done. I was thinking of doing something like that myself; now I either (a) don't have to, because you already did, or (b) *really* have to, now that you've established the precedent...
I can't say I'm at all surprised at the results you got.
(I do wonder what can be done about the phenomenon?)
On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
After reading David Gerard's post "RFA has gone weird"[1] two weeks back, I decided on a whim to nominate myself for adminship. [2]
Firstly, let me say that I was planning to support because of your attitude, but I must have forgotten. Consider it 25/32/12! The more candidates from the Mark Gallagher school, the better, in my opinion.
On 10/21/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
What a marvelous experiment! Well done, very well done. I was thinking of doing something like that myself; now I either (a) don't have to, because you already did, or (b) *really* have to, now that you've established the precedent...
I can't say I'm at all surprised at the results you got.
(I do wonder what can be done about the phenomenon?)
The issue is the people who participate and the requirements they impose, which are both wildly idiosyncratic and, to the casual observer, utterly abstract in their origin.
I think it's a good idea to judge candidates based on their contribution to the encyclopaedia. That's what we're here for, after all. But this is almost always done on editcount, and everyone has a different count they are looking for. Why not take a look at some of the pages they have written, or contributed significantly to, and judge them on whether they're well written articles? The same goes for other criteria people impose.
I generally only participate in RfAs where I know the editor who has been nominated (and thus feel qualified to make a judgment), or where I am so impressed that I feel justified in making a judgment despite not knowing them.
I may be setting the bar for participation too low here, and I am sure that there are many deserving candidates who I have not supported who turn out to be great admins whom I work well with once they are promoted. Nevertheless, my underlying criterion remains whether I trust the person to exercise good judgment.
On 10/20/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I generally only participate in RfAs where I know the editor who has been nominated (and thus feel qualified to make a judgment), or where I am so impressed that I feel justified in making a judgment despite not knowing them.
I may be setting the bar for participation too low here, and I am sure that there are many deserving candidates who I have not supported who turn out to be great admins whom I work well with once they are promoted. Nevertheless, my underlying criterion remains whether I trust the person to exercise good judgment.
I figure either I should know someone previously, or spend the time to research them enough to determine if they have good judgement.
For many of the RFAs, I let it go for a while and determine that they aren't showing me enough within the RFA itself to justify me investing a good fraction of an hour to study their editing habits.
I'm not sure if that's good for the process overall or not. But I don't have the time to personally follow up reading the last 500 edits made by everyone who gets nominated. To some degree, I rely on the process of others who know the person coming along and either posting a good enough "Support" comment that it piques my interest or posting something in the "Oppose" section that attracts interest.
On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
- ZOMG how dare you not answer the questions??!!1!!1
As an admin you need to be able to provide a reason to do anything. A unwillingness to communicate is a bad sign
- One has to have "a specific reason" for wanting admin tools. Being
generally concerned for the good of the project is not enough to satisfy the razor minds of the RfA voters.
Sure we have no shortage of paper admins (you know that 100 admin actions per month will put you in the top 3rd of active admins?)
- Editcountitis is actually a mindset of self-improvement, not a
pointless obsession. You must have as many edits as is humanly possible before even considering being an admin. ("Storkk" lays it out straight: "390 mainspace edits isn't really evidence of gnoming. I am really looking for something like 3000 - 4000.")
There are gnoming activities where it is trivial to rack up thousands of edits.
- Life as an admin is a hellish, Kafka-esque nightmare of continuous
inquisition from a swollen, all-powerful bureaucracy. ("[W]hat you experience here is only a taste of what one will face as an admin", comments "Physicq210".)
Sure if you want to be at all active.
- It is somehow useful for people to cast a "neutral vote", rather
than just leaving a comment, which is of equivalent logical value.
that isn't quite the case.
- Despite there being over a thousand administrators already, one bad
egg is enough to cause havoc, disaster, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. The solution to this is obviously to keep the number of administrators as small as possible, thus maintaining the status quo and preventing more potential bad people from becoming admins.
I sleep better at night knowing that a lagre number of admins make the same mistake that you do.
In any case people remember the userbox wars. A couple of foolish admins can do a lot of damage.
- Even stating "I promise not to go batshit" and signing it with your
real name is not enough to sway the high muck-a-mucks. Consider taking classes in advanced boot-licking before responding to comments. ("[C]andidate is... plainly in that class of admin who would immediately set out causing grief and bloodshed.", declares "Splash".)
Yeah they remeber cyde's promises as well.
In message f80608430610201737l2ec92722tcc09cfe66b61c03d@mail.gmail.com, geni geniice-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes
On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia-yIYeTQxHKJFg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org wrote:
- ZOMG how dare you not answer the questions??!!1!!1
As an admin you need to be able to provide a reason to do anything. A unwillingness to communicate is a bad sign
Personally, I'll reply to reasonable questions about what I've done, but have seldom been asked to. The hundreds of IP's I've blocked rarely seem to protest their innocence, and if someone claims collateral damage then I'll unblock and keep an eye on their activities for a while. I'm glad I got my admin flag three years ago when RfA wasn't at all bureaucratic.
- One has to have "a specific reason" for wanting admin tools. Being
generally concerned for the good of the project is not enough to satisfy the razor minds of the RfA voters.
Sure we have no shortage of paper admins (you know that 100 admin actions per month will put you in the top 3rd of active admins?)
- Editcountitis is actually a mindset of self-improvement, not a
pointless obsession. You must have as many edits as is humanly possible before even considering being an admin. ("Storkk" lays it out straight: "390 mainspace edits isn't really evidence of gnoming. I am really looking for something like 3000 - 4000.")
There are gnoming activities where it is trivial to rack up thousands of edits.
1000 good edits should be plenty.
- Life as an admin is a hellish, Kafka-esque nightmare of continuous
inquisition from a swollen, all-powerful bureaucracy. ("[W]hat you experience here is only a taste of what one will face as an admin", comments "Physicq210".)
Sure if you want to be at all active.
I'm reasonably active - I don't do RC patrol very often or run CDVF, but I do keep an eye on the 3500 articles on my watchlist, which is plenty to be going on with, blocking evildoers and reverting vandalism. So far I've avoided the bureaucracy for three years. It's even three and a half weeks since my talk page was last vandalised by "Johnny the Vandal" (with any luck he may have died).
On 21/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
- ZOMG how dare you not answer the questions??!!1!!1
As an admin you need to be able to provide a reason to do anything. A unwillingness to communicate is a bad sign
I was not being asked for a reason to do anything. I was being asked for a reason for being able to do anything, which is quite different. I made it clear in my nomination that I wished to be judged on the strength of my earlier contributions. And in those earlier contributions, I made quite sure to give reasons. (Mathbot's tool says: "Edit summary usage for Earle_Martin: 100% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 131 minor edits in the article namespace.")
- One has to have "a specific reason" for wanting admin tools. Being
generally concerned for the good of the project is not enough to satisfy the razor minds of the RfA voters.
Sure we have no shortage of paper admins (you know that 100 admin actions per month will put you in the top 3rd of active admins?)
Is that somehow harmful to the project? And why would I want to be in any particular percentile of activity? This is a reference project, not a game where you have to rack up a score. (See: editcountitis.)
There are gnoming activities where it is trivial to rack up thousands of edits.
Perhaps, if you (a) have many, many hours to spend on editing Wikipedia (I don't, being both employed and having a family to look after) or (b) you use AutoWikiBrowser. I don't, because strangely enough to use AWB you have to qualify by having a large number of edits.
- Life as an admin is a hellish, Kafka-esque nightmare of continuous
inquisition from a swollen, all-powerful bureaucracy. ("[W]hat you experience here is only a taste of what one will face as an admin", comments "Physicq210".)
Sure if you want to be at all active.
Care to explain?
- It is somehow useful for people to cast a "neutral vote", rather
than just leaving a comment, which is of equivalent logical value.
that isn't quite the case.
Care to explain?
- Even stating "I promise not to go batshit" and signing it with your
real name is not enough to sway the high muck-a-mucks. Consider taking classes in advanced boot-licking before responding to comments. ("[C]andidate is... plainly in that class of admin who would immediately set out causing grief and bloodshed.", declares "Splash".)
Yeah they remeber cyde's promises as well.
Sorry, but making oblique references to events I did not witness involving a person I've never spoken to is a remarkably useless way to answer a point.
On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I was not being asked for a reason to do anything. I was being asked for a reason for being able to do anything, which is quite different. I made it clear in my nomination that I wished to be judged on the strength of my earlier contributions. And in those earlier contributions, I made quite sure to give reasons. (Mathbot's tool says: "Edit summary usage for Earle_Martin: 100% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 131 minor edits in the article namespace.")
As an admin you don't get to chose which questions people expect you to answer (which can range from "why did you delete my image??????" to "which guideline says we should not have article specific disclaimers?" to "have you stopped blocking people against policy?").
(incidentally "because I wanted to destroy something beautiful" "who cares?" and "I've just blocked you. Draw your own conclusions" are not good answers.)
Is that somehow harmful to the project?
yes because it means that we have 500 people who can cause rather a lot of chaos who are not really part of the admin community.
And why would I want to be in any particular percentile of activity? This is a reference project, not a game where you have to rack up a score. (See: editcountitis.)
Admins are meant to be cleaners. Standards of what makes a good admin will differ from what makes a good editor.
Perhaps, if you (a) have many, many hours to spend on editing Wikipedia (I don't, being both employed and having a family to look after) or (b) you use AutoWikiBrowser. I don't, because strangely enough to use AWB you have to qualify by having a large number of edits.
No I just know exactly in which areas it is possible to rack up edits at a rate of greater than one a minute (stub sorting, orphaning images on CSD, cating uncat articles and wikifying are the first lot that come to mind).
Care to explain?
Politics gets complicated. It gets really complicated when the players are wikipedians and the rules are fluid and change from minute to minute. You can dodge the politics but that takes a fair bit of knowledge of what is going on.
Care to explain?
Comments are aimed at other editors. Neutral votes are aimed at bureaucrats.
Sorry, but making oblique references to events I did not witness involving a person I've never spoken to is a remarkably useless way to answer a point.
It is however an excellent demonstration. Unless you know about the events behind that comment people will appear to be acting irrationally where in fact they are not doing so. The "I promise not to go batshit" is meaningless unless you know what people consider to be going ah "batshit".
On 21/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
[paper admins]
Is that somehow harmful to the project?
yes because it means that we have 500 people who can cause rather a lot of chaos who are not really part of the admin community.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
Comments are aimed at other editors. Neutral votes are aimed at bureaucrats.
And what exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.
Sorry, but making oblique references to events I did not witness involving a person I've never spoken to is a remarkably useless way to answer a point.
It is however an excellent demonstration. Unless you know about the events behind that comment people will appear to be acting irrationally where in fact they are not doing so.
No, it's far from that. I can't click on anything in your post that links to some page full of discussion and diff links and who knows what and explains whatever you were talking about - which you *still* haven't done.
The "I promise not to go batshit" is meaningless unless you know what people consider to be going ah "batshit".
Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be supported with expository links.
The "I promise not to go batshit" is meaningless unless you know what people consider to be going ah "batshit".
Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be supported with expository links.
Modern society has evolved in such a way that "common sense" is a meaningless phrase, since over 90% of the population is too damned dumb to show any sense at all.
Parker
Parker Peters wrote:
Modern society has evolved in such a way that "common sense" is a meaningless phrase, since over 90% of the population is too damned dumb to show any sense at all.
How is this any different from non-modern society? Consider some of the nonsensical superstitions that were considered "common sense" explanations in various points in history.
On 22/10/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Modern society has evolved in such a way that "common sense" is a meaningless phrase, since over 90% of the population is too damned dumb to show any sense at all.
Sturgeon's Law writ large....
On 10/22/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
yes because it means that we have 500 people who can cause rather a lot of chaos who are not really part of the admin community.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage when acting in good faith.
And what exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.
The Bureaucrat is going to take them into consideration. I can comment without even being neutral let alone supporting or opposing (I would be ah disinterested).
No, it's far from that. I can't click on anything in your post that links to some page full of discussion and diff links and who knows what and explains whatever you were talking about - which you *still* haven't done.
The issue is the userbox wars I'm not going to go into detail. you will find references to those events all over the place. Suffice to say the lesion learned is that people's actions are a far better basis for figuring out what they are going to do than what they say.
Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be supported with expository links.
"Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why intuitionism has never been widely accepted.
On 22/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/22/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage when acting in good faith.
So you are saying, in effect, that we should consider the people that you describe as "paper admins" as potentially damagingly stupid? I'm sure they'll be very happy to hear that.
And what exactly are the bureaucrats going to do with them? If they influence the success or failure of an RfA, then they should be positive or negative votes. Anything else is a comment.
The Bureaucrat is going to take them into consideration. I can comment without even being neutral let alone supporting or opposing (I would be ah disinterested).
If you're motivated enough to comment, you can't be disinterested, by definition.
I don't understand what is to be taken into consideration from a neutral comment when making a verdict (sorry, I mean "tallying votes"). From reading my RfA, quite a few of the "neutral" votes seemed to actually be mealy-mouthed "oppose" votes. Is the bureaucrat's job to divine what the voters were actually trying to say?
The issue is the userbox wars I'm not going to go into detail. you will find references to those events all over the place. Suffice to say the lesion [Freudian slip? -- Earle] learned is that people's actions are a far better basis for figuring out what they are going to do than what they say.
It would have helped this conversation a lot if you had deigned to mention "the userbox wars" in the first place instead of making me force it out of you like this.
Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be supported with expository links.
"Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why intuitionism has never been widely accepted.
Straw man. This is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not mathematics.
On 10/22/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Nothing to do with that. We know that people can do a lot of damage when acting in good faith.
So you are saying, in effect, that we should consider the people that you describe as "paper admins" as potentially damagingly stupid? I'm sure they'll be very happy to hear that.
Unaware would be a better term. Certainly not stupid.
If you're motivated enough to comment, you can't be disinterested, by definition.
No I can comment (say making a factual correction) and still be completely disinterested in the result.
I don't understand what is to be taken into consideration from a neutral comment when making a verdict (sorry, I mean "tallying votes"). From reading my RfA, quite a few of the "neutral" votes seemed to actually be mealy-mouthed "oppose" votes. Is the bureaucrat's job to divine what the voters were actually trying to say?
No. Neutral !votes are normally ignored. They only come into play when there is a close result.
Common sense specifies what batshit means. Anything else should be supported with expository links.
"Common sense" has no place in rational theory. To start with algebra starts to break down and you can't do calculus. There is a reason why intuitionism has never been widely accepted.
Straw man. This is an encyclopedia written by consensus, not mathematics.
The problem is that once you adopt a system within which maths breaks down everything else breaks down (of course maths isn't the only thing that breaks down under a system based on "common sense" but it is a fairly critical example). I would be happy to defend the position that it is foolish to use a system in which maths does not hold.
It would be advisable to use logic rather than "common sense".
I'm fairly similar to you, I've been around for a little more than two years (June 2004), I have around 2000 edits, I've proven myself to be curteous, I've participated in process, I do occasional vandal-fighting. Most of my wikipedia time is spent helping clueless newbies do their first articles (that right there should qualify me, you have to have the patience of a small planet!). I'm very familiar with process (as much as anyone can, given how much process we have). I don't get into arguments much, if I see one I try to defuse it. If I do get into an argument, I argue curtiously and respectfully. I'm a stand-up guy. I'm not a very good writer though, so I tend not to make big article improvements, but I've helped out the encyclopedia in many other ways. I feel like I've improved it. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to be an admin.
But I would never pass an RfA. I mean, if someone would nominate me, I would accept (although I don't think anyone will), but I'm pretty sure that I would get shot down pretty easily because of my edit-count and my less than stellar involvement with articles. But I have helped with the encyclopedia, in many ways. With admin-tools, I know I could help more. That doesn't seem likely though. It's bordeline mental, what RfA has become.
--Oskar
Same boat here but as I spend less time on wikipedia lately its not a big deal. I find that less responsibility makes things more fun in many cases anyway. I am especially the same in that I don't have a lot of confidence in my writing, well and I can be a bit argumentative at times (though usually polite).
SKL
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm fairly similar to you, I've been around for a little more than two years (June 2004), I have around 2000 edits, I've proven myself to be curteous, I've participated in process, I do occasional vandal-fighting. Most of my wikipedia time is spent helping clueless newbies do their first articles (that right there should qualify me, you have to have the patience of a small planet!). I'm very familiar with process (as much as anyone can, given how much process we have). I don't get into arguments much, if I see one I try to defuse it. If I do get into an argument, I argue curtiously and respectfully. I'm a stand-up guy. I'm not a very good writer though, so I tend not to make big article improvements, but I've helped out the encyclopedia in many other ways. I feel like I've improved it. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to be an admin.
But I would never pass an RfA. I mean, if someone would nominate me, I would accept (although I don't think anyone will), but I'm pretty sure that I would get shot down pretty easily because of my edit-count and my less than stellar involvement with articles. But I have helped with the encyclopedia, in many ways. With admin-tools, I know I could help more. That doesn't seem likely though. It's bordeline mental, what RfA has become.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I discovered the stupidness of RFA when I nominated Mac Davis. He was rejected because (1) he made a copyvio in his second edit! OMG (2)He doesn't go on AFD (3) He's 14 (not because he's immature, becuase he's 14. One editor said that hs deny vote was based solely on his gae, regardless of maturity) and (4) He made it so that when you roll over his signature, it makes a crosshair. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mac_Davis for details. I thought adminsip was absolutely no big deal. On 10/21/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Same boat here but as I spend less time on wikipedia lately its not a big deal. I find that less responsibility makes things more fun in many cases anyway. I am especially the same in that I don't have a lot of confidence in my writing, well and I can be a bit argumentative at times (though usually polite).
SKL
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm fairly similar to you, I've been around for a little more than two years (June 2004), I have around 2000 edits, I've proven myself to be curteous, I've participated in process, I do occasional vandal-fighting. Most of my wikipedia time is spent helping clueless newbies do their first articles (that right there should qualify me, you have to have the patience of a small planet!). I'm very familiar with process (as much as anyone can, given how much process we have). I don't get into arguments much, if I see one I try to defuse it. If I do get into an argument, I argue curtiously and respectfully. I'm a stand-up guy. I'm not a very good writer though, so I tend not to make big article improvements, but I've helped out the encyclopedia in many other ways. I feel like I've improved it. I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to be an admin.
But I would never pass an RfA. I mean, if someone would nominate me, I would accept (although I don't think anyone will), but I'm pretty sure that I would get shot down pretty easily because of my edit-count and my less than stellar involvement with articles. But I have helped with the encyclopedia, in many ways. With admin-tools, I know I could help more. That doesn't seem likely though. It's bordeline mental, what RfA has become.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Chris Picone wrote:
I discovered the stupidness of RFA when I nominated Mac Davis. He was rejected because (1) he made a copyvio in his second edit! OMG (2)He doesn't go on AFD (3) He's 14 (not because he's immature, becuase he's 14. One editor said that hs deny vote was based solely on his gae, regardless of maturity) and (4) He made it so that when you roll over his signature, it makes a crosshair. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mac_Davis for details. I thought adminsip was absolutely no big deal.
It's getting worse! That last bit reminds me of that crowd that used to say that if you played Beatles songs backwards you would get a message from the devil.
I hardly recognize any names among those who voted.
I find some of the age discrimination comments highly objectionable. I see them on a par with sexism or racism; bold action may be required to bring these guys under control.
The AfD question shouldn't be allowed at all; it seems directed toward insuring a gang of admins who will think in the one way which they consider politically correct.
Those there who put so much emphasis on vandal fighting seem to forget that the aim of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia.
Ec
On 10/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Those there who put so much emphasis on vandal fighting seem to forget that the aim of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia.
The counter argument to that would that yuo don't need to be an admin to edit.
geni wrote:
On 10/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Those there who put so much emphasis on vandal fighting seem to forget that the aim of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia.
The counter argument to that would that yuo don't need to be an admin to edit.
True enough. I've gone 4 1/2 years steadfastly refusing to be an admin. There have been some occasions where I would have found it useful to look at deleted articles, or to move things around, or sometimes to edit locked pages. (Most recently to fix "can not" to "cannot" in the disclaimer statement) None of this would involve vandal fighting. I may apply for adminship on my fifth anniversary. ;-)
Ec