On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:29:10 +0200, you wrote:
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".
To be honest I am not a huge fan of self-nominations for adminship anyway. I turned down three nominations before accepting one, and had to be persuaded even then. Are we sure that Tyrenuis' assessment of his own fitness for adminship is objective? Not that I'm saying he would not be a good admin, but it seems to me that the people who get given admin tools are generally the ones who are seen to be likely to use them, those who are active in countering vandalism, cleaning up, stopping wars, finding vanity and spam articles and so on. If someone is not doing these things, why do they need the Wikimop? If they are doing these things, they will get noticed.
I do think it is bad that so few RfAs reach 100 votes. It would be much better if more people contributed. But then, I rarely vote so I can hardly talk. Guy (JzG)