--- Andrew Smith wikipediablah@hotmail.com wrote:
adding extra layers of bureaucracy.
yes, it is bureaucracy. This is good and bad at the same time :/
I think Wikipedia will need more bureucracy as its population rises. Maybe a new RfA is not needed at the exact moment, but I like to get prepared for the future.
10-15 people skimming through the nominee's contributions and using their eyes/brain to form an opinion.
the software system (although I generally dislike software automation) is an attempt to evaluate users in a more impersonal way, without much individual judgement.
In one of the cases you mention, of user Metasquares being nominated after less than 100 edits
I personally think that this user will make a good admin, but I find it impossible to support someone with less than 500 edits.
One reason is: I find inactive sysop accounts to be a security hole in the system. A user with 500 edits is more likely to stay in the project than a user with 100 edits. If a user with 100 edits gets sysop privileges and then he/she becomes inactive, we will have a new inactive admin, thus a new potential security hole :/
Just my thoughts,
Andrew (Ams80)
Thank you very much! don't hesitate to criticise, criticism is good & useful.
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/