[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[Ray Saintonge]

Ilmari Karonen wrote:

>Steve Bennett wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>However irritating this might seem to the person who is told that, this 
>can in fact be quite reasonable advice.  The subtext is often "We don't 
>know enough about you to tell if you'd be a good admin.  If you're still 
>interested and haven't gone off the deep end in the meanwhile, try again 
>in a few months."  Or simply "I don't think you're experienced enough 
>yet.  Try again when you've been around longer."  Or possibly both.
>
>People do change over time, and more importantly, people also reveal 
>more about themselves as they interact with people.  _I_ know I was as 
>trustworthy back when I registered my account as when my RfA was passed, 
>but for all anyone else knew back them, I could've been another WoW 
>sock.  The six months or so between the two events served not only to 
>familiarize me with Wikipedia, but also to provide other users with some 
>confidence that I wasn't going to go on a vandalism spree as soon as I 
>got my admin buttons.
>
If we tell someone to come again later we need to tell him why, and what 
he must do in the interim to qualify.

I also think that it should be possible for bureaucrats to desysop 
someone more easily.  There are always some candidates that seem 
borderline, and where it would be good to give them a chance, but one 
hesitates when there would be no easy chance to undo an error.

Ec