On 4/19/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: Of course correct - but ironically much of the problem lies with people who want users to participate more in morasses like AfD or to brush up on area X of policy, rather than making article edits. And on at least one occasion, I've seen one guy say something along the lines of "I trust you to have the tools, but oppose because you don't have enough article edits". The whole question revolves around *trust*. Simply put, people should not be opposing because they "see no need for the tools" - a comment which often comes up when decent article editors are nominated. The more admins we have the better. To be honest, if I ran for RfA today, I would probably be denounced as having no need for th tools, since I rarely use them. But I still use them, at least a few times a month (mainly because I work in quiet areas of the 'pedia, and can't be arsed to get involved in crazily controversial areas of WP) - and this is the sort of quiet work that probably would be more effective. People like geni reject this suggestion because they look at the admin stats presently and point out that, say, 20% of the admins are doing 80% of the work. But it doesn't have to be that way. I hypothesise that they are confusing cause and effect. I think it's more likely that our unnecessary restrictions making only the most crazy/hard-working/real-lifeless people get through RfA are preventing a "long tail" from building up that can do most of the work. Heck, for editing in general, it is the long tail which does most of the edits. I see no reason the same can't apply for admins, except for our artificial restrictions which focus more on arbitrary qualifications than the question of trust. Johnleemk

Ron Ritzman wrote: I don't think it's a matter of experience writing articles. It's more about an excessive zeal to protect their own firmly held points of view about what is right. Even more, it's about a screwed up decision making system that does not scale well into such a large community. A number of people begin with what they honesly feel is a valuable proposal, and set about writing rules about it. They are able to convince a small number of others that these rules are valuable, and a partisan crowd builds around that rule, willing to protect it. Most of the rest of us have other things to do than to be constantly on the alert about the new rules, and tend to ignore them until somebody tries to enforce the rule. In theory, some of these rules could sit there for years before most of us know about them. Some rules go so far as to discourage anyone from informing the community that the rules are being changed. This is most likely to affect those who would disagree with the rule. Votes taken without the community being properly informed about them do not reflect the will of the community. At other times the rule changes come in a series of small increments which individually might take place without objection, but which collectively can have a profound effect. Unless and until rule making can be seriously reformed we can expect the kind of harmful rigidity that pervades RfA and deletion processes to continue. Beyond our fundamental root principles absolutely no rule should be set in stone. When a rule has been adopted (under whatever rule adoption procedure is followed) no-one be able to sit back and feel the relief of being able to say, "That's one more problem out of the way." Many of us grow up in the real world with a set of rules already there, rules about which we had no influence. Similarly, newbies come to us and are confronted with a set of rules about which they had no influence. We need a mechanism that allows anyone at any time to have a meaningful say in the future of a rule. Even a newbie should have an influence on a rule that was adopted long ago. Ec

On 19/04/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote: Um, the ArbCom is shooting bad admins as needed. I think what you mean is there's no easy lynch mob^W^Wcommunity process method of removing an admin people don't like this month. - d.

on 4/19/07 12:30 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote: Yes! This is not only effective policy, but would represent a positive, inclusive culture. Marc Riddell -- If you're restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.