On 3/31/06, Steve Bennett stevage@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