[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[Ray Saintonge]

Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 3/31/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Well, no, the part about going on a vandalism spree was hyperbole.  It's
>>more about protecting ourselves against users who might use their admin
>>povers for more subtle undesirable things, such as POV pushing, or for
>>ends incompatible with the project (like the folks who think the best
>>thing about Wikipedia are the userboxes), or who might simply use them
>>carelessly or thoughtlessly, say, by rangeblocking all of Europe.
>>    
>>
>And we are going to detect such users by ensuring we only select
>admins who use edit summaries 95% of the time and have made at least
>1500 distinct edits in the minimum 6 months they have had an account
>at en?
>
I wouldn't attach much importance to en editor's use of edit summaries, 
unless it is part of a bigger pattern of hiding hostile edits.

>False metrics are worse than no metrics :(
>
Very much!

>I think I'd rather that each RfA required a neutral person to review
>the person's entire edit history, noting the number of edit wars,
>whether edit summaries were accurate, their apparent stance on
>controversial topics like userboxes etc, then publishing those facts
>for everyone to decide on. Rather than (incorrectly) assuming that
>each person voting does such a review for themselves.
>
As a Wiktionary bureaucrat I make a point of recusing myself from voting 
on any admin requests.  When it appears that the candidate has more than 
trivial support I do look at the kind of things that you mention before 
acting.  Usually the result will be to support the community, but I 
reserve the right to act contrarily.  If I want to override the 
community I better have a good reason without being too stubborn about it.

Ec