[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[Jtkiefer]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 3/31/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>>    * if the nominee is "generally a known and trusted member of the community".
>>>       
>> And this is where the attempt to rule lawer from outdated policy
>> breaks down. You can count the number of people generally know to the
>> current wikipedia community one hand. Thus we have to accept that
>> either there should be almost no new admins or that policy is failing
>> to describe wikipedia practice and needs to be rewriten.
>>     
>
> Tyrenius's interpretation of this rule seems to be that amongst those
> who have had contact with him, he is respected and trusted. Is that
> fair enough?
>
> I would actually argue that the number of people generally known to
> the community can be counted on one thumb, and some comments in the
> userbox controversy cast doubt on that.
>
> I think my biggest complaint with all this is that, as happens so
> often, when people are asked to make quick fire judgments about
> something big and complicated, they resort very quickly to judging
> form or statistics. My own nomination was unanimously opposed because
> I hadn't included an introductory nomination statement. You see a lot
> of comments that "edit summaries too low", for people with 90% or more
> edit summary in major edits, or "not enough edits", for people with
> more than 2000.
>
> And the worst is "come back later, might support you then". Not
> because the candidate is in any way actually deficient as an admin,
> but they simply haven't served an unwritten waiting period.
>
> </rant>
>
> Steve
>   
Don't blame me, I went up for bureaucratship so that I could actually 
interpret RFA's as not being votes but based on consensus where the 
jackasses get discounted but the asshole cabal;voted me down 5 times in 
a row.  If that doesn't show that Wikipedians and RFA are fucked up in 
the head I don't know what it says.

-Jtkiefer