User:Infrangible/Views

This page is to state my views on various Wikipedia topics for the benefit of those who don't want to guess by sifting through all my edits.

The Pointlessness Factor

(3) That is how many exchanges it takes to determine that two people will never agree, no matter how much they talk, no matter how clearly each person states their side. Beyond three exchanges, discussion between these two individuals on the topic in question is pointless because their opionions are set. I challange anyone to find a disagreement on wikipedia, or in any human endeavor for that matter, where one side has spontaneously capitualted after three or more exchanges and said "you are right, I never saw it that way." This could be considered a corrolary to the three-revert rule. How many lives would be saved, how much senseless destruction could be prevented if people simply realized when it was time to agree to disagree?

Don't tell people what to do, ask nicely

Don't do this, don't do that. I see terse comments like these on talk pages. This does not seem to be covered under WP:CIVIL, however it certainly follows the spirit. This is basic kindergarten curriculum. Would you walk up to a stranger on the street and boss them around that way? Words are listened to when they are spoken kindly, when you say please and thank you. When you bark at people, the reaction is more likely to be negative. Maybe there should be a template such as:
{{disagree|user|thing|~~~~}}
Hello (user), I appreciate your contributions, but disagree with the way you handled (thing) this differs from the conventions I have seen. A diversity of opinion is a great strength of Wikipedia, perhaps you have some insightful reason for doing it this way. If that is the case, please forgive me for not seeing it.
Thank you, (~~~~)

Conflict of Interest

Individual conflicts of interest (such as a page edit or a comment in a discussion) do not concern me. We are all conflicted to some degree about everything. The checks to this getting out of hand are:

• Wikipedia is massively peer reviewed.
• If there is a diversity of opinions, then the result will be no consensus and no page will be deleted.
• If mob rule prevails, the judgement of the closing admin should determine that the topic has not been adequately disucssed
• If the admin has a COI and is unable to restrain themselves, then there is always WP:DRV.

In areas of power such as that of an admin, a conflict of interestshould be avoided. Such a person should recuse themselves from a decision such as an AFD close or a page deletion. There are enough admins who don't care so much about topc X as they do, so the project wont't suffer if they pass up the job. ~ Infrangible 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anality

I have sensed a tone from some wikipedians, particularly in RfA's, that there are some folks who take all this a bit too seriously. Let me give you some examples:

• A user may be scrutinized for being away from wikipedia for a block of time.
• A user may not have enough edits within the span of the last month/day/year.
• A user is frowned upon who only puts in edit summaries 50% of the time
• Three years ago this user lost their cool and told someone to fuck off.
• This user shows a lack of understanding of policy X.
• This user self-nominated, therefore has a sinister agenda

And now for my position: It should be OK to have a life outside of Wikipedia. Nobody can claim they have never made a mistake except for those who have never tried. Admin tools really are "no big deal" It is not like the root password to the wikimedia foundation's servers. The worst thing you could do is delete a page that one of a thousand other admins can undelete or one of 2+ billion internet users can simply recreate. To put it simply: WP:RELAX

Or as jimbo sez: "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*... I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing."

AfDs

Lately I have been involved in a lot of AFDs in an effort to get my Wikipedia edit count up. I think I am challenged by the notion of it not being a vote. Is it really not a vote? I would be interested to hear from Administrators on their thought process when closing an AFD.

I am thinking that it is a vote in the regard that it is a tally of opinions. An analogy would be like in the American legal system, in some cases, a judge may overturn a jury's verdict.

Though the jury attempts to reach a consensus, perhaps a bit stricter than WP:CONSENSUS, and it carries a heavy weight with the judge, he/she must be vigilant to flawed groupthink and should use their veto power only when they perceive that an unjust verdict has been handed down, and then only to the benefit of the defendant.

Looking at it this way makes me believe that the closing Administrator's duty is to guard against mob rule while striving to maintain faith in the process. --Infrangible 12:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This exchange [1] on a deletion I originally disagreed with has firmed up my beliefs on AFDs. Many thanks to Sandstein for pointing out the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.