[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[David Alexander Russell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The 'generally known and trusted...' doesn't reflect how RFAs actually
happen. It usually comes down to 'absence of fault' rather than any sort
of positive support of a person. Unless someone has done something
controversial (previously be desysopped, stated unpopular views on
deletion policy or whatever) then, provided they have significant
participation in various namespaces their RFA will probably be unanimous
(if they have any of the aforementioned faults, however minor, it will
probably degenerate into a no-consensus flamewar)


Cynical

geni wrote:
> On 3/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 And this is where the attempt to rule lawer from outdated policy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?
>>
> 
> Since we are aparently following the hard wording of the rules no.
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> We do have [[Category:Notable_Wikipedians]].
> 
> The regular RFAr votes probably know each other (myself I try to avoid
> voteing there for a number of reasons includeing spaming of my talk
> page)
> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Heh last time I was there I a fair number of the oppose votes came
> from people who said I should have held a policy debate first.
> 
> There is no way to prevent people from makeing snap judgements so at
> best we can hope to make sure those judements are as good as posible
> 
>> 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
> 
> It does take time to learn how wikipedia works (I'm not still totaly
> certian on range blocks although I have used them on other wikis) so
> it is reasonable to have some level of waiting peroid.
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 
> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFELS2Jg8fvtQYQevcRAhG2AKCNbyIKYb9jynRxIz/iPcGko3Cx3ACfaIG0
ewtfkbunswZ8uCiDiATev6A=
=YV8m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----