On 5/9/06, Mark Gallagher
Then he ran for RfA. He was opposed on many
counts, including general
immaturity, low-level creepiness, having an huge edits-per-article
average (because of his obsession with Article X), and having a really
annoying way of using talkpages (coloured text and a big .sig). He
attempted to argue that, since he was a "Wikipedian in good standing",
because he had the minimum cited edit count at the time, we owed him
adminship. He even complained to Jimbo about it.
As long as we persist in expecting admins to have the support of the
community, there should be a way for us to have input on candidates who
may meet all the requirements but who nevertheless should not be allowed
to ever touch those extra buttons.
Every time I explain my idea, I do it badly :) When I say, "we check
that the candidate meets all the requirements", I don't imply that
those requirements are simply numerical. I would hope they would
include things like "little evidence of incivility", "no edit warring
in 2 months preceding nomination", "little evidence of treating
Wikipedia as MySpace" etc. I would hope for a healthy debate over what
we expect from an admin. Rather than a debate over every individual
candidate who runs, rehashing the same arguments again and again.
If anyone works out a way to quantify sanity, they'll win a Nobel Prize.
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales