User talk:Qq/Tit for tat
Response edit
I strongly disagree with the main thesis of this essay. As someone who is not an administrator and cannot become an administrator for quite some time, I can legitimately say that my continuing participation in RFA discussions has no ulterior motive. I think the process of gaining trust by showing dedication to the project is natural and to be expected. I don't see it as a sign of cabalism, and I certainly don't consider myself part of any cabal. I think most Wikipedians, including the administrators, will share this view. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Shalom, and reject the thesis of this essay totally. I have often opposed or being neutral at editors RfA's, despite previous positive interaction. And the actual person who nominates at a deletion debate is neither here nor there with reagrd to my input at the debate. I find this essay to be disturbing, and would urge you to consider whether it fosters a positive atmosphere of collaboration, which is what a wiki is about. In my opinion it does not. Pedro : Chat 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal is not only disturbing in the sense that it incites to behaviour we deem morally bad, but also false. The seemingly directionless pile of economic terms in this essay is countered by yet another economic principle, utility. Wikipedia editors derive utility from writing good articles, not being administrators or winning certain debates. User:Krator (t c) 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)