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.