WPedians are human, even administrators. There are very few processes depending on people that work with more than 95% accuracy--especially when judgment is involved. Given that, bad examples will always be forthcoming.
As a first approach I ask just 3 things: 1/ that we try to ensure our error rate for rejection is 5%, not 20%. 2/ that we have a more flexible and accessible process for detecting, reviewing and correcting mistakes, and use it more frequently and with greater participation. 3/ that those who insist on acting against policy but instead as they wish policy would be, do not become, or remain, administrators.
On 9/5/07, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
And, it's not an occasional poor decisions, there are poor decisions all of the time, every day on AfD, nominations because an article hasn't been edited in 2 months or something, nominations because an academic isn't as notable as a pokeman card, and when the nominator can bother to follow it for all this time, but can't spend a second to clean it up.
Try nomination on a university because it "doesn't assert notability" on for size. From the "but X cannot be speedily deleted", I'm rather glad the nominator is not an administrator...
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l