Rich Holton wrote:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The only real criteria I can figure is that we want to avoid admins who go completely zonkers and start systematically working against the aims of Wikipedia. If we can be reasonably sure someone won't do that, then there's no reason to keep them from becoming an admin.
I agree with that. They should, of course, be willing to serve as sysops. I would de-sysop people who have disappeared completely for an extended period of time, but these could have the privilege restored on request.
Of course, we need to be willing (and able) to de-admin someone when they consistently demonstrate the sort of behaviors you mention (or worse). But the whole wiki concept is one of self healing and resilience, not pre-approval. What we don't want to have is a class of users (admins) who are placed into the spotlight every time they make a mistake, or every time one of them turns out to be less than desirable.
Again, I agree. Some people are just too quick to judge. We all make mistakes, or have moments of anger where are behaviour is less than respectable. That, however, should not be thrown back in people's faces every time they do something wrong thereafter. If the penalty for a given action is to be blocked for a week that should be the end of it That is key in any form of remedial justice.
I respect the concerns of those who want to avoid granting large blocks of admin rights to what end up as sock-puppets intent on destruction. Perhaps we do need a sizable class of users whose sole role is granting and revoking admin rights--but these users should not be themselves admins. These people should be very carefully selected, and should for the most part stay out of controversy.
I don't think so. Such a monomanic job is just another way of developing more people with a narrow outlook. I would rather see admins who can perform a variety of tasks, and know that developing articles is the most important one.
Ec