Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/31/06, geni geniice@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And this is where the attempt to rule lawer from outdated policy breaks down.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