-----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@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/31/06, geni geniice@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And this is where the attempt to rule lawer from outdated policy breaks down.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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l