Failing to admin a volatile user is not a failure. A volatile user
not recognizing the reasons for a delay in granting him additional
powers; that is a failure. Weyes's volatility has been proven by his
abrupt departure.
Note that several users who voted "oppose" to his admin candidacies
also said he'd be a good candidate in the future. There were enough
that if they changed their votes, he would have been adminned both
times. He also received a lot of compliments for his RC patrol work,
even in some oppose votes.
Like it or not, administrators are the "official face" of Wikipedia to
the general editing public. Recently, many admins, and even some
arbitrators seem to have forgotten this, and have been less civil than
is generally expected from someone in such a position. Since
de-adminning is near impossible for simple incivility (and incivility
among admins is frequently excused by other admins as "part of a tough
job"), it is becoming more difficult to become an admin because at
least some users want Wikipedia to have an indefatigably friendly
face. For some reason, some admins think this push for higher
standards is an anti-admin cabal, rather than a legitimate, good faith
effort by concerned individuals to improve Wikipedia. If you have a
devil in the field, you need a lot more saints surrounding him if you
don't want him seen.
Want adminship to be easier to get, and closer to "no big deal"? Be
sure that the admins that are in place are always on their best
behavior, and *always* admonish those who aren't, even if there isn't
any formal punishment. Stop excusing incivility for any reason
whatsoever.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
On 7/4/05, J.F. de Wolff <jfdwolff(a)doctors.org.uk> wrote:
Instead of supporting this chap's RC work, he gets ranted at for coming
down too hard on obvious trolls, spammers etc.
JFW
Michael Turley wrote:
>>
>>
>> It seems Weyes has left. What a disgrace. We've never had such a diligent
>> RC patroller, and he was more right than wrong in his crusade against
>> excessive external links. That's another one gone after RickK. Why on
earth
>> do we fail the Wikipedians who do so much to protect our project from
>> vandals, cranks and idiots?
>>
>> Jfdwolff
>
>I'm genuinely curious: in what way do you assign his absence to a
>failure of ours?