On 2/16/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Hi,
sorry for jumping into this thread without reading the other responses first, but here's mine... :-)
Keitei wrote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else.
This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking, protecting or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be neutral (in what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big deal" again that we are trying hard not to make it.
No one can be entirely neutral, but admins should act neutral and either enact the beliefs of the community at large (or policy in case the community ignores policy without a good reason). Acting neutral doesn't mean an admin can't have a POV.
Therefore, admin candidates must:
demonstrate they can [...]This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!
You don't need to be an admin to prove you'd be a good one. If you edit well as a regular editor, people have plenty to look at to see if a candidate is reliable.