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.