On 6 Oct 2006, at 23:11, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:47:01 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar in a specific field of administrator work. If we could specifically give people the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed. Perhaps it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.
I'm not sure. I've proposed, I think, two or three people for adminship, in each case because I was very confident that they would assume good faith and be fair-minded. That is, in my view, all you need. Everything else can be learned on the job.
Needless to say these people were voted down at RFA, for reasons entirely divorced from their fitness to do what the sysop bit allows, namely blocking where justified and deleting where necessary.
Obviously it's me who is at odds with consensus. I think that Stephen Streater in particular would be a fine admin, and if I can persuade William Pietri to accept a nomination I will be very happy. I bet somebody will find a reason to oppose even William.
That's very kind of you.
Needless to say, you do not meet the current requirement for blandness!
But really I think that the peer-review process for admin actions is lacking. I am firmly of the view that we should talk more about what we do, and we desperately need to find a better way of dealing with trolls: either they get blocked immediately (which violates BITE) or we let them hang around until we get thoroughly fed up with them, in which case they poison everything they touch. Danny's right, though - these are dilemmas and there is no easy answer.
Yes - there seems to be a stiff entry requirement followed by little accountability. Perhaps if we did it the other way round, we would get better service from our Admins.