[WikiEN-l] School of Hard Knocks, or, what I learnt from my RfA

[Earle Martin]

On 21/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> >1) 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.")

> > 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.
>
> 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.

> > 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".)
>
> Sure if you want to be at all active.

Care to explain?

> > 7) 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?

> > 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".)
>
> 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.


-- 
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/