On 24/08/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think there is any "might"
about it. If we relax admin
requirements, we will get more bad admins
Putting aside the issue of whether or not we should, if we wanted to
relax admin requirements, how would we do it? It appears that those
saying "support" and "oppose" are the ones who decide admin
requirements and I don't see them responding favorably to a "pretty
please don't !vote "oppose" for reasons X, Y, and Z" request.
Changing admin requirements would mean changing the way we pick admins
and I don't see that happening either.
going back a little bit on this post Rfa is probably very bad - lets look at
it another way - statistics tell us that in any given week there are around
4000 regular registered editors (on en). 10pc of those are probably admin
(or if the theory is true 25pc). I personally dont think that 2000 of the
regular editors want to get involved. so of the remainder you have fair
wether editors who want to get stuck in (and want to be admin now,
yesterday), editors who will bide their time with a goal of clocking up and
playing the WP says this and guidelines says this. The rest are too
frightened to try or do try and then leave the project once Rfa is snowed.
How to make it good? I will never say that all admins are good but why not a
revolving commitee of 20 admins at random who decide based on applicatants
edits, communication, GF blocks etc - make it a real vote. open - no need
for candidates to screw themselves by answering every post.