[WikiEN-l] Thoughts on the process of requesting adminship
David Gerard
fun at thingy.apana.org.au
Thu Jun 30 23:47:39 UTC 2005
Timwi (timwi at gmx.net) [050701 09:43]:
Indeed. The present RFA procedure is horribly topheavy and
instruction-crept.
> As a first step, I would like to suggest to make it policy that "oppose"
> votes must be accompanied by reasoning indicating the nominee's past
> wrongdoing or potential for wrongdoing. It should not be permitted to
> vote "oppose" just because someone has "only a few hundred edits", as
> this is neither a crime nor a sign of bad faith. As a safeguard against
> crackpots nominating themselves straight after their first edit,
> however, I suggest that candidates must be nominated by an existing admin.
Sounds good to me.
> In the long-term, my suggestion is to abolish the requirement for
> majority vote. Anyone who is already an admin is trusted; I think
> someone nominated by an existing admin should therefore be given a
> certain "initial trust" too. Thus, admins should be able to just appoint
> other admins.
I'd like to work our way to that stage slowly ;-)
> As for removing adminship, ideally I would like to see the
> process closely resemble that for blocking users. The things we have
> collected at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] have evolved over time; a
> similar "deadminning policy", containing various behaviours that warrant
> deadminning without a vote, is surely conceivable. In particular, I can
> imagine the 3RR apply to page-protection, deletion/undeletion, or
> blocking/unblocking other users. Having more admins, and therefore more
> sensible admins ;-), makes this much easier to keep under control by the
> community.
Temp deadminning in the software? Hmm ...
- d.
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list