[WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:47:01 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar in a
>specific field of administrator work. If we could specifically give people
>the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed. Perhaps
>it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.

I'm not sure.  I've proposed, I think, two or three people for
adminship, in each case because I was very confident that they would
assume good faith and be fair-minded.  That is, in my view, all you
need.  Everything else can be learned on the job.

Needless to say these people were voted down at RFA, for reasons
entirely divorced from their fitness to do what the sysop bit allows,
namely blocking where justified and deleting where necessary.

Obviously it's me who is at odds with consensus.  I think that Stephen
Streater in particular would be a fine admin, and if I can persuade
William Pietri to accept a nomination I will be very happy.  I bet
somebody will find a reason to oppose even William.  

But really I think that the peer-review process for admin actions is
lacking.  I am firmly of the view that we should talk more about what
we do, and we desperately need to find a better way of dealing with
trolls: either they get blocked immediately (which violates BITE) or
we let them hang around until we get thoroughly fed up with them, in
which case they poison everything they touch.  Danny's right, though -
these are dilemmas and there is no easy answer.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG