[WikiEN-l] Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

Thu Mar 6 03:43:30 UTC 2008

Well i thought thats what we pay bureaucrats for, to chuck bad answers. 

----- Original Message ----
From: Screamer <scream at datascreamer.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:17:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin, RFA, RFB and whatnot...

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 at datascreamer.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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