[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>There is no such consensus.  The RfA system works for you because you
>>use it, as do all the others who participate.  There are far more people
>>who just wash their hands of it, and just limit their activities to
>>some narrow topic.
>>    
>>
>On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that
>decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy
>decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins
>has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep
>things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal
>might gain approval, but none have so far.
>
I made no mention of referenda.  Your highly questionable interpretation 
of "consensus" should probably have the words "at that time" added to 
it.  In many of these decisions the attitude is, "If you didn't know the 
discussion was going on, too bad, you've forfeited your right to 
participate anyway."

It's no wonder that any attempts at improving admin selection are 
rejected.  Those who have a vested interest in the way things are, or 
who participate regularly in the RfA cabal keep a close watch on the 
current rules.  Those who would like improvement include many who 
consider the present state of things hopeless, and thus never bother 
looking there.  If a good rule change is proposed they simply don't know 
about it, even if there are more of them.  Any suggestion that the 
decision making process that happens there is consensus is a load of crap.

Ec