[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[geni]

On 3/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I just came across this excellent analysis of the problems with RfA at
> the moment, written by Tyrenius, who had his application rejected on
> the basis of insufficient edits (he had 1331 at time of application,
> and apparently works offline a great deal, making that figure
> misleading), age (not sure, older than 3 months) and supposedly not
> doing enough "project work".
>
> It's worth a read - he has every right to be annoyed at not being
> granted adminship, when he has followed the letter of the law, and was
> rejected by an RfA culture which does not reflect that policy.
>
>
>    * if the nominee has been "an active Wikipedia contributor for a while"
>    * 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And this is where the attempt to rule lawer from outdated policy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.


--
geni