Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/EvergreenFir
 | This is an RfA talk page.
While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
An RfA talk page without a bunch of ranting on it?[edit]
Is that even allowed? >;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Don't jinx it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant rant! Is that bunch enough for ya? ;>) Paine 11:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- I guess one has to laugh sometimes, but in all fairness opposers do have reasons for serious concern. Relations between the sexes(i+) are rather central to human happiness. According to this data rich blog, since about 2016, the re-ignited gender & culture wars have replaced the old Atheism v Religion debates as by far the most divisive point of contention across the entire Internet. It's interesting why we see such relatively low levels of gender related conflict on Wikipedia - possibly due to the dominance of our moderately progressive house view, which well reflects the balance of coverage in liberal {reliable} sources, but no so much views held by large sections of the wider population. Said house view has some disadvantages. Since seeing Joker, I've became aware of a decision by progressive editors to effectively redefine the meaning of a certain gender related word on its article page. An action that propagated across the MSM & the internet, making it extremely challenging to talk productively about an increasingly prevalent & painful condition that's currently afflicting ~200m people. As per my vote I was considering raising it here as an example. But now think I'll wait until the times right to post about it on the applicable article talk. As the RfA's progressed it's looking more & more like EvergreenFir's battleground days are well in the past. This recent diff by one of the neutrals for example seems to show her making a policy & sourced based case against what could be seen as her own side, very little has been shown to suggest an ongoing battlefield approach, while there's much to suggest good clueful editing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Old saying when it comes to the sexes... "vive la différence"! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- I guess one has to laugh sometimes, but in all fairness opposers do have reasons for serious concern. Relations between the sexes(i+) are rather central to human happiness. According to this data rich blog, since about 2016, the re-ignited gender & culture wars have replaced the old Atheism v Religion debates as by far the most divisive point of contention across the entire Internet. It's interesting why we see such relatively low levels of gender related conflict on Wikipedia - possibly due to the dominance of our moderately progressive house view, which well reflects the balance of coverage in liberal {reliable} sources, but no so much views held by large sections of the wider population. Said house view has some disadvantages. Since seeing Joker, I've became aware of a decision by progressive editors to effectively redefine the meaning of a certain gender related word on its article page. An action that propagated across the MSM & the internet, making it extremely challenging to talk productively about an increasingly prevalent & painful condition that's currently afflicting ~200m people. As per my vote I was considering raising it here as an example. But now think I'll wait until the times right to post about it on the applicable article talk. As the RfA's progressed it's looking more & more like EvergreenFir's battleground days are well in the past. This recent diff by one of the neutrals for example seems to show her making a policy & sourced based case against what could be seen as her own side, very little has been shown to suggest an ongoing battlefield approach, while there's much to suggest good clueful editing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- *drops pin and everyone heard it* Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)