| Revision as of 23:46, 26 January 2008 editGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits : NYB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:59, 26 June 2023 edit undoFastily (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled100,543 edits cleaned up bot spamTag: Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| <div style="float:right;margin-right:0.9em"> | |||
| ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| Old messages are at | |||
| *] (2004) | |||
| *] (2005) | |||
| *] (2005) | |||
| *] (2006) | |||
| *] (2006) | |||
| *] (2007) | |||
| *] (2007) | |||
| *] (2008) | |||
| == == | |||
| ] (]) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I was rather interested in that theory - I've heard it a lot - and I wondered what the evidence actually was. So here's some initial findings. Of the 15 current arbs 8 have userpage writing brags - many have impressive credentials: | |||
| * Blnguyen - 7 FAs, 164 DYK | |||
| * FloNight - ] | |||
| * FT2 - | |||
| * Kirill Lokshin - 5FA | |||
| * Newyorkbrad - 4DYK | |||
| * Paul August - 1FA ] | |||
| * Sam Blacketer - 25+ DYK | |||
| * FayssalF ] | |||
| ] | |||
| * Thebainer 3FA and countless more | |||
| Now, I suspect some of the others will also have impressive contributions - but are more modest. (And, you'll agree, having FAs etc is not the be all and end all of being a content writer.) Certainly, few arbs have the impressive record of the like of yourself, but then you are pretty well in the .01% of elite content contributors. But I'd certainly have to conclude that serious writers are very well represented amongst arbs. Indeed whilst non-content grunt work can probably get you through RfA, it seems that the community tends to choose content contributors to serve on its arbitration committee. I certainly think your claim "there are those of us who write, those of them who rule", is simply not supported by the facts. Unless you are implying that only the elite few of multiple FA writers are qualified to rule. Now, my research here is superficial, and can perhaps be rebutted otherwise.--]<sup>g</sup> 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm afraid you have misread me Doc. if you look again I say those who serve those that rule. I am referring to those in the chat rooms of IRC who pop out to gain adminship and only pop out again to do the bidding of their masters. I think you will find there are quite a few of those. Talking of DYK type editors, and you being such an expert, does JPGordon contribute in that department? ] (]) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You seemed to be suggesting that there were three groups - "those of us who write, those of them who rule, and those of them that serve those who rule". But anyway, I tend to agree that we have too many admins passing RfA with no significant content work whatsoever (and that's even setting a low bar). Indeed I've been a lone voice opposing them recently. It would be interesting to see whether those who "serve the masters" or those who tend to agree with you are most prone to having few content contributions. I wouldn't presume the answer to fall either way.--]<sup>g</sup> 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well don't keep being the lone voice, or you may find yourself walking with a very nasty limp amd singing alto. ] (]) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I tend to vote on RfA after closely looking at contributions too, and generally oppose those with nary a GA or DYK - I dislike the idea of a schism, jeeze, the work isn't that sprcialised that we need specialists surely. Having admins with no article writing experience is risky, especially at AfD and some of the debates arising there I feel. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We shall have an entire choir singing contralto before the month is out at this rate. ] (]) 22:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think looking for GAs and DYKs is just crappy instruction creep. One needs to look for some article contributions regardless of any pursuit of baubles. I didn't know what DYK was when I was sysopped. Admin specialism is fine - but at least some familiarity with content writing is essential. Indeed all the evidence suggests that if people have the type of eloquence and clear thought that makes them effective in policy debates and dispute resolution then they will be reasonable writers too. Admins without those skills are fine if they stick to the mindless gruntwork - they are not fine when they get out of their intellectual depth otherwise.--]<sup>g</sup> 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::It's good if you're pressed for time. Not so much DYK but GA and FA require the person to exhibit some degree of diplomacy or collaboration. Choir...hmmmm..alalalalalalalalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalalalalalalalalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallaalal...''(my best impression then)'' cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| People acting out of their intellectual depth? On wikipedia? never.....''(I'll turn off sarcasm now)'' cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The triumph of mediocrity. Anyway, I'm waiting to get my balls crushed --]<sup>g</sup> 23:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Brags on a userpage don't impress me much (yes, I do it, but it's not how I want to be judged). I could have 40 DYK's instead of 4 if I'd heard of the DYK process a few months earlier, but that's neither here nor there. I do have to confess that my content contributions have dried up dramatically since I became an administrator, which is precisely what I vowed would not happen. I think I'm going to have to promise here to have an article on FAC by the end of February, so that people can nag me and shame me until I get around to doing it. ] (]) 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you think there will be anybody left by then, who cares enough about FAs to do the nagging? ] (]) 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:59, 26 June 2023
Redirect to: