On 3/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I just came across this excellent analysis of the problems with RfA at
the moment, written by Tyrenius, who had his application rejected on
the basis of insufficient edits (he had 1331 at time of application,
and apparently works offline a great deal, making that figure
misleading), age (not sure, older than 3 months) and supposedly not
doing enough "project work".
It's worth a read - he has every right to be annoyed at not being
granted adminship, when he has followed the letter of the law, and was
rejected by an RfA culture which does not reflect that policy.
* if the nominee has been "an active Wikipedia contributor for a while"
* if the nominee is "generally a known and trusted member of the community".
And this is where the attempt to rule lawer from outdated policy
breaks down. You can count the number of people generally know to the
current wikipedia community one hand. Thus we have to accept that
either there should be almost no new admins or that policy is failing
to describe wikipedia practice and needs to be rewriten.
--
geni