[WikiEN-l] Solid, obvious, elegant, workable deadminning criteria? (was No RFAs in progress...)

[michael west]

On 24/08/07, Ron Ritzman <ritzman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin
> > requirements, we will get more bad admins
>
> Putting aside the issue of whether or not we should, if we wanted to
> relax admin requirements, how would we do it? It appears that those
> saying "support" and "oppose" are the ones who decide admin
> requirements and I don't see them responding favorably to a "pretty
> please don't !vote "oppose" for reasons X, Y, and Z" request.
>
> Changing admin requirements would mean changing the way we pick admins
> and I don't see that happening either.


going back a little bit on this post Rfa is probably very bad - lets look at
it another way - statistics tell us that in any given week there are around
4000 regular registered editors (on en). 10pc of those are probably admin
(or if the theory is true 25pc). I personally dont think that 2000 of the
regular editors want to get involved. so of the remainder you have fair
wether editors who want to get stuck in (and want to be admin now,
yesterday), editors who will bide their time with a goal of clocking up and
playing the WP says this and guidelines says this. The rest are too
frightened to try or do try and then leave the project once Rfa is snowed.

How to make it good? I will never say that all admins are good but why not a
revolving commitee of 20 admins at random who decide based on applicatants
edits, communication, GF blocks etc - make it a real vote. open - no need
for candidates to screw themselves by answering every post.

mike