--- Andrew Smith <wikipediablah(a)hotmail.com>
adding extra layers of bureaucracy.
yes, it is bureaucracy. This is good and bad at
the same time :/
I think Wikipedia will need more bureucracy as
its population rises. Maybe a new RfA is not
needed at the exact moment, but I like to get
prepared for the future.
skimming through the nominee's contributions
and using their eyes/brain to
form an opinion.
the software system (although I generally dislike
software automation) is an attempt to evaluate
users in a more impersonal way, without much
In one of the cases you mention, of user
Metasquares being nominated after
less than 100 edits
I personally think that this user will make a
good admin, but I find it impossible to support
someone with less than 500 edits.
One reason is: I find inactive sysop accounts to
be a security hole in the system. A user with 500
edits is more likely to stay in the project than
a user with 100 edits. If a user with 100 edits
gets sysop privileges and then he/she becomes
inactive, we will have a new inactive admin, thus
a new potential security hole :/
Just my thoughts,
Thank you very much! don't hesitate to criticise,
criticism is good & useful.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!