April Arcus (talk | contribs) m →Edit Histories: signing |
→Scifi'ers: reply |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::Wikipedia, [[Wikipedia: WP:RFA#About_RfA|on the subject]]: "Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry." | ::Wikipedia, [[Wikipedia: WP:RFA#About_RfA|on the subject]]: "Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry." | ||
::In my opinion, there's no serious reason to suspect sock-puppetry if they have credible accounts on Sci-Fi.com. However, since the choice of administrators here only directly impacts regular editors, I would still tend to take their voices with a grain of salt compared to our regulars. Also, note that on Wikipedia, "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support", which Merv is currently a few votes short of. I reiterate my personal neutrality on this vote, but I hope that Joe will take the opposing votes by our regular contributors very seriously as he considers Merv's promotion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:22, 16 March 2006 (CST) | ::In my opinion, there's no serious reason to suspect sock-puppetry if they have credible accounts on Sci-Fi.com. However, since the choice of administrators here only directly impacts regular editors, I would still tend to take their voices with a grain of salt compared to our regulars. Also, note that on Wikipedia, "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support", which Merv is currently a few votes short of. I reiterate my personal neutrality on this vote, but I hope that Joe will take the opposing votes by our regular contributors very seriously as he considers Merv's promotion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:22, 16 March 2006 (CST) | ||
:::I saw this issue coming... Here's the thing. I don't know whether or not these people fully understand the responsibilties of an admin or how an admin can affect a Wiki. So far they haven't demonstrated why they voted Support, other than perhaps a loyalty to Merv on the SciFi board. (Which should have absolutely no bearing here, whatsoever.) | |||
:::Admittedly, Merv is an excellent contributor and his work is wonderful; he does have opportunties when dealing with certain situations (which were mentioned in an oppose vote in the RfA, so I will not reiterate them here). Has he gotten better? Abso-frakkin'-lutely. | |||
:::But again, as Peter has rightfully pointed out, adminship is neither a trophy nor a popularity contest. As also pointed out, adminship grants you additional tools (mainly blocking users, protecting/unprotecting pages from editing, and deletion of articles). These tools are nice, yet most of the contributions are mainly done from non-admins. Admins have the keys to the janitor's closet and, being in that position of "power", area also scrutinized without them even knowing it. | |||
:::Now, here's where people are going to really start getting irked. I'm going to have to discount votes from any accounts made within the past three weeks. From a rational standpoint, they are new contributors and are still learning the Wiki basics, so their votes have very little weight. | |||
:::Of course, I am willing to listen to any and all concerns brought to the table. So please reply to them on this talk page (and don't bring this issue on my talk page, for I believe people can benefit from it here). -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 08:12, 17 March 2006 (CST) | |||
===Edit Histories=== | ===Edit Histories=== | ||
Just wanted to put together a quick contribution history for some of the less familiar participants in this vote. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 17 March 2006 (CST) | Just wanted to put together a quick contribution history for some of the less familiar participants in this vote. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 17 March 2006 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 14:12, 17 March 2006
I need Joe to clean this up. It's been a while since we've used this formatting. --The Merovingian 04:40, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Scifi'ers
These votes from the scifi.com'ers (where their only edit is the vote in an RFA) would likely be loudly decried as sockpuppets at a wikipedia RFA. Fortunately their scifi.com accounts buy them some cred. I hope they stick around after their vote though. (It looks like Dogger may have a project in mind...) --Steelviper 12:37, 16 March 2006 (CST)
- Dogger usually has something interesting up his sleave.--Noneofyourbusiness 14:27, 16 March 2006 (EST)
- Wikipedia, on the subject: "Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry."
- In my opinion, there's no serious reason to suspect sock-puppetry if they have credible accounts on Sci-Fi.com. However, since the choice of administrators here only directly impacts regular editors, I would still tend to take their voices with a grain of salt compared to our regulars. Also, note that on Wikipedia, "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support", which Merv is currently a few votes short of. I reiterate my personal neutrality on this vote, but I hope that Joe will take the opposing votes by our regular contributors very seriously as he considers Merv's promotion. --Peter Farago 20:22, 16 March 2006 (CST)
- I saw this issue coming... Here's the thing. I don't know whether or not these people fully understand the responsibilties of an admin or how an admin can affect a Wiki. So far they haven't demonstrated why they voted Support, other than perhaps a loyalty to Merv on the SciFi board. (Which should have absolutely no bearing here, whatsoever.)
- Admittedly, Merv is an excellent contributor and his work is wonderful; he does have opportunties when dealing with certain situations (which were mentioned in an oppose vote in the RfA, so I will not reiterate them here). Has he gotten better? Abso-frakkin'-lutely.
- But again, as Peter has rightfully pointed out, adminship is neither a trophy nor a popularity contest. As also pointed out, adminship grants you additional tools (mainly blocking users, protecting/unprotecting pages from editing, and deletion of articles). These tools are nice, yet most of the contributions are mainly done from non-admins. Admins have the keys to the janitor's closet and, being in that position of "power", area also scrutinized without them even knowing it.
- Now, here's where people are going to really start getting irked. I'm going to have to discount votes from any accounts made within the past three weeks. From a rational standpoint, they are new contributors and are still learning the Wiki basics, so their votes have very little weight.
- Of course, I am willing to listen to any and all concerns brought to the table. So please reply to them on this talk page (and don't bring this issue on my talk page, for I believe people can benefit from it here). -- Joe Beaudoin 08:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)
Edit Histories
Just wanted to put together a quick contribution history for some of the less familiar participants in this vote. --Peter Farago 01:39, 17 March 2006 (CST)
- Dogger: Member since 22 November 2005. User profile at Scifi.com.
Total 21 100% (Main) 10 47.62% Talk 6 23.81% User talk 3 14.29% Battlestar Wiki 3 14.29%
- Mazzy: Member since 16 March 2006. User profile at Scifi.com.
Total 1 100% Battlestar Wiki 1 100%
- Artlogical: Member since 16 March 2006. User profile at Scifi.com.
Total 1 100% Battlestar Wiki 1 100%
- Grafix: Member since 26 February 2006.
Total 188 100% (Main) 163 86.7% Talk 9 4.79% User talk 12 6.38% Battlestar Wiki 1 0.53% Template 3 1.6%
- Noneofyourbusiness: Member since 3 March 2006. User profile at Scifi.com.
Total 215 100% (Main) 173 80.47%% Talk 23 10.7% User talk 6 2.79% Battlestar Wiki 12 5.58% Battlestar Wiki talk 1 0.47%