[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[Steve Bennett]

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 And this is where the attempt to rule lawer from outdated policy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