[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[geni]

On 3/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are we? It doesn't look like. Perhaps we should, but it doesn't look
> like we are.

The intial complainant is trying to make the case that we don't follow
the rules and that under the rules he should be elected. The first
part is true. The second is not.


> > We do have [[Category:Notable_Wikipedians]].
>
> Not a very notable category, I didn't know about it :)
>

Most people don't. You only need know about it if you deal with
certain areas or want to be an all knowing admin.


> Eep. Regularly RFAr voters! So there is a self-appointed cabal that
> selects admins? Oh, goodie. :)

Yes and no. While the regulars handle the nn cases they don't have the
numbers to promote someone who picks up oposition from any signifant
group of non regualar voters.


>
> Good god.
>

It was a slightly non standard case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Genisock2


>
> Any ideas?
>

Make as much information as about the candidate availible as quickly
and as simply as posible.



> I don't agree. There should be other ways of assessing whether a user
> has "gotten it" or not. A user who makes 3000 edits in a month is not
> substantially different from a user who makes 3000 edits in 2 years,
> is he? Or, even if there is a difference, is the difference critical?
>

The two year version is more likely to know why we are where we are
now. Admins who don't know this tend to cause interesting problems.
This can also be the case with returning admins. There are other
differences that are also likely to exist.


> Maybe we should adopt an "easy come, easy go" policy. Make it much
> easier for users to get admin rights, but make it much easier for them
> to be desysopped too (perhaps by simple request by 3 other admins?).

That sounds like a great recipy for admins to vote against adminship
requests of people they have had dissputes with

> Then, rather than attempting to prejudge admins, we could actually
> road-test them. Hell, give them a trial period of 2 weeks, *then* vote
> on them.
>

2 weeks tells you nothing. Even I can avoid causeing problems for a
couple of weeks with a bit of effort.

> This arbitrary set of ever-increasing hurdles defined by a small group
> of regular voters seems to go against the Wikipedia spirit.
>

Maybe but wether it goes against the wikipedia spirit is not the issue.

--
geni