On 4/10/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
To be quite honest, is there any reason why the community should even have a say in appointing admns? Why not just have candidates be vetted by bureaucrats (or some similar group if preferred)? Would the project be worse off?
I don't think that RFA should be replaced by such a system but this post got me thinking about an alternative way of selecting admins to operate alongside RFA. I would call it "Plan B" and here's how it would work.
It wouldn't be an "open nomination" system like RFA. A candidate would be selected and vetted by "some group of experienced wikipedians". Bureaucrats, your "similar group", stewarts, the foundation, a group of admins, Jimbo's secret cabal (tinsc) etc. The point is that the candidate would be somebody that "insiders" have investigated and believe would make a good admin.
The candidate is then presented to the community for discussion. The presentation could be paraphrased something like this "This is user:JoeShmoe. He has been on Wikipedia since $DATE, has worked on $THESE_PROJECTS and done $THESE_THINGS. We think he would make a good admin and we trust him with the tools.
The community would then be invited to comment. It would not be a vote and there will be no "questions". The only way that the candidate would not become an admin is if somebody in good faith presents a "DAMN GOOD REASON" why JoeShmoe should not be given the tools, perhaps something that the nominators had missed about his past behavior. What would not be considered is anything that the nominators have already considered such as his edit count, his work or lack of on a FA, his votes in AFD/RFA, his experience in article space vs policy discussions. Irrelevant or ambiguous comments would not be considered such as "no need for the tools" or "He's a Scorpio" :)
When should "Plan B" be used? I don't know, that could be decided later.