Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:43:33 -0500, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I am sorely tempted to add "Has displayed sufficient common sense as to have not read the inordinate amount of crap on this page and its subpages" as a criterion. As always, helping Wikipedia to demonstrate a point.
In this case we agree completely :-)
My admin criteria are, roughly:
- Have seen them around, so I know them from a hole in the ground
- Have seen nothing that scares me
That was initially my view, but as of late I've taken the more expansive view, and vote by: 1. Identifying votes on RFA which seem to be anything other than 90%+ in favor 2. Doing a quick spot check to see if the nominee in question seems reasonable 3. Voting yes if so
The only way to counter the process-wonk culture at RFA is for a number of non-process-wonks to consistently vote "yes" every time any of them try to vote "no" for some bullshit reason, after first checking that the nominee really isn't someone completely insane.
It's not like we're making any sort of lifelong commitment or appointing Wikipedia dictators. IMO, anyone who's been around Wikipedia for a few months and not done anything crazy should automatically get access to a few additional admin tools. If they turn out to misuse them, we can always de-admin them. Now that images can be undeleted, literally every single admin action can be undone, usually easily, so it's not really a problem.
-Mark