On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Timwi (timwi(a)gmx.net) [050701 09:43]:
Indeed. The present RFA procedure is horribly topheavy and
instruction-crept.
As a first step, I would like to suggest to make
it policy that "oppose"
votes must be accompanied by reasoning indicating the nominee's past
wrongdoing or potential for wrongdoing. It should not be permitted to
vote "oppose" just because someone has "only a few hundred edits",
as
this is neither a crime nor a sign of bad faith. As a safeguard against
crackpots nominating themselves straight after their first edit,
however, I suggest that candidates must be nominated by an existing admin.
Sounds good to me.
I was unaware that one could oppose a nomination without providing a reason.
Doing so seems to me an act of bad faith, or stirring up trouble for no
reason.
I believe that self-nominations should still be permitted. It's very easy
to contribute to Wikipedia & not know more than a few Wikipedians; some
folks deserving of our trust can get overlooked quite easily.
In the long-term, my suggestion is to abolish the
requirement for
majority vote. Anyone who is already an admin is trusted; I think
someone nominated by an existing admin should therefore be given a
certain "initial trust" too. Thus, admins should be able to just appoint
other admins.
I'd like to work our way to that stage slowly ;-)
I had assumed that adminship was by consensus: get enough endorsements, &
you became an admin. If a nominee was controversial (e.g., a history of
"POV-pushing" over [[Lower Elbonia]]), then those opposed -- no matter
how fewin number -- would have to persuade the others that this was a
bad choice.
I've been uninvolved in the RFA process for a long time now, assuming
that anyone who's been on Wikipedia for a couple of months & has made
a few hundred edits gets adminship -- unless there's a good reason not
to grant it. I've been more concerned in spending my time on making
contributions, not in meeting new Wikipedians or the politics of
Wikipedia; & since I haven't gotten to know the latest nominees, &
feel that adding "support" to them is an endorsement of character for
people I don't know, I've assumed that other Wikipedians have been
doing the job correctly. If this part of Wikipedia has become the
province of a group or clique of members who are not doing the work
correctly, then that information should be made public.
As for de-adminning, the only thing I have to add is that admins who
leave Wikipedia, & fail to make prior arrangements, should lose their
admin rights after 3-6 months. I see this as just a janitorial action,
intended to help keep things simpler; & if you leave Wikipedia without
saying "good-by" or letting anyone know that you'll be back, then
I feel that person doesn't deserve our trust.
Geoff