Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should restrict it down to answer a three part question. A. Do you trust this user? B. Why/Why not? C. What can this user do to earn your trust?
----- Original Message ---- From: Screamer scream@datascreamer.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 5:23:36 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should restrict it down to answer a three part question. A. Do you trust this user? B. Why/Why not? C. What can this user do to earn your trust?
----- Original Message ---- From: Screamer scream@datascreamer.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 5:23:36 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________________________________________Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Option B gives room to game. I don't trust this user because he or she nominated Joe Bob
More stringent questions perhaps?
./scream
On 06/03/2008, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should restrict it down to answer a three part question. A. Do you trust this user? B. Why/Why not? C. What can this user do to earn your trust?
re point C - what can I possibly do in 7 days to earn someone's trust that I have not done in 12 months and 13000+ actions as an admin, and in almost 2 years and 30000+ edits? I can answer questions to death... I can't invent a cure for cancer.
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)
On 06/03/2008, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should restrict it down to answer a three part question. A. Do you trust this user? B. Why/Why not? C. What can this user do to earn your trust?
re point C - what can I possibly do in 7 days to earn someone's trust that I have not done in 12 months and 13000+ actions as an admin, and in almost 2 years and 30000+ edits? I can answer questions to death... I can't invent a cure for cancer.
-- Riana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
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?
-Matt
Riana wrote:
On 06/03/2008, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should restrict it down to answer a three part question. A. Do you trust this user? B. Why/Why not? C. What can this user do to earn your trust?
re point C - what can I possibly do in 7 days to earn someone's trust that I have not done in 12 months and 13000+ actions as an admin, and in almost 2 years and 30000+ edits? I can answer questions to death... I can't invent a cure for cancer.
Perhaps a cure for cancer is exactly what is needed to solve the problems with RfA. :-)
Ec