For the last week I've had an MfD open for an egregious example of process gone wrong. It'd be good to get some comments on it from list-members.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Req...
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:59:53 +0000, "Earle Martin" wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
For the last week I've had an MfD open for an egregious example of process gone wrong. It'd be good to get some comments on it from list-members.
Not "process gone wrong" at all, I'd say, but it is a questionable use of resources. The failure of process is the whole business of arbitrary demands for shrubberies at AfD, documenting or not documenting the demands won't make them go away.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/11/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
For the last week I've had an MfD open for an egregious example of process gone wrong. It'd be good to get some comments on it from list-members.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Req...
I think the biggest problems faced by those pages are that they are too unweildy and too many of the opinions are out of date and undated.
I don't see how this can be considered "process gone wrong" or "instruction creep". The underlying idea is good. I remember when I first came across adminship. It seemed like a cool idea. Then I read that people with "less than 500-1000 edits" were unlikely to pass the vote. Since I had just a few hundred edits I wandered off and learned about policy and all sorts of other things, and ended up passing my RFA easily. In part it was because of the standards publicised by jguk - he said (at the time) that he would oppose anyone without an FA to their name, and support a candidate with one. Putting a good article together did not, in and of itself, prepare me for adminship, but the time it took gave me a chance to learn about policy and learn about Wikipedia.
Anyone who has even had an "oppose" vote with little explanation wishes for a list of standards. Some people have said that criteria belong in a person's user space. If so, then there needs to be a central directory of these userspace criteria - so something like this list would be needed anyway. People who do post criteria should be required to update them, or at least certify them, every few months, but that's a different matter...
On 11/11/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who has even had an "oppose" vote with little explanation wishes for a list of standards. Some people have said that criteria belong in a person's user space. If so, then there needs to be a central directory of these userspace criteria - so something like this list would be needed anyway.
After thinking about it some more I have made a lengthy proposal. I would value comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Standards...