On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/15/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett
<stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
* Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.
Yep. And if after a month as an admin, they still hadn't done it, you
could raise a complaint.
And what good would that do?
* Had a web link in signature (no one had told
him not to)
That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should
just know.
He didn't. And when told, he fixed it. So, we've voting no on people
who don't know everything there is to know about wikipedia?
No but not useing us to produce several thousand links to whatever
would be nice.
* Has strong opinions on userboxes
After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little
twitchy about that one.
Has Cyde been desysopped? No? So, evidently strong opinions on
userboxes do not conflict significantly with being a decent admin.
Have you ever tried to get someone desysopped?
In any case it doesn't matter. In past conflicts it didn't really
matter how many admins you had on your side other than as part of the
more generaly numbers you had. In the case of userboxes the number of
admins you had on your side and who were ready to throw around their
admin powers and wheel war was absolutely critical.
* Hasn't done anything stupid
Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as
we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is
something I like to se in admins.
Lots of users haven't done anything stupid. Should they all be admins?
Assuming they have been around long enough to establish a pattern of
not doing stupid things sure.
I've also suggested that one or two people should
take it upon
themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going
through their entire history and producing a short report, which other
people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where
each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably
votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for
people they already know about.
Tell me more about your system.
Steve
Go to RFA once or twice a week. Scan list. Vote on anyone you already
know. Go back to dealing with other stuff onwiki.
--
geni