On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
? You appear to have lost faith in Wikipedia here.
No I just accept that admins pretty much have teniture. You can remove them but it isn't easy
"Would be nice" -> "if he failed to do that, we vote no"? Anyway, since nofollow is now enabled for talk pages, it is unlikely to be a problem.
Anyway, I don't really understand your line of argument here. Are you saying that candidates that fail to do what "would be nice" should be rejected? Are you saying that such minor offenses that are corrected merely by asking the person to stop doing it, are still reasons to vote no? Why do we even care about such tiny things, just because they're done by RfA candidates?
I would be unlikly to vote over a single issue like that but I would view it as evidence they they had not read the admins reading list prior to either nominating or accepting the nomination.
Nope, but it would be much better to facilitate the process for desysopping people who behave badly, than not promoting them out of fear that they "could" behave badly, because they have strong opinions on things.
Strong opinions per say have not historicaly been a problem. Strong opinions on the way wikipedia should be run tend to be more of a problem
So a user who has been around for 3 years, turning 5 pokemon articles into FAs and decorating his userpage would be a good admin - assuming that's all he's done.
Yup. Probably able to work with other people (getting things to FA without working with other people is posible but not in a subject area as popular with pokemon) and the person will understand at least part of our fair use rules.
Surely we can do better than promoting admins on the basis of what they *haven't* done.
Not really. Adminship should be as widely held as posible.
Would you like to take this further and make an RfA guideline that people should primarily vote on people they already know, and if not, to tread warily and heavily research candidates before voting?
Steve
Not a massive fan of guidlines (no one seems to read them unless they are hopeing to use them against someone) so probably not but I would support the general idea.