Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:43:33 -0500, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am sorely tempted to add "Has displayed
sufficient common sense as
to have not read the inordinate amount of crap on this page and its
subpages" as a criterion. As always, helping Wikipedia to demonstrate
a point.
In this case we agree completely :-)
My admin criteria are, roughly:
* Have seen them around, so I know them from a hole in the ground
* Have seen nothing that scares me
That was initially my view, but as of late I've taken the more expansive
view, and vote by:
1. Identifying votes on RFA which seem to be anything other than 90%+ in
favor
2. Doing a quick spot check to see if the nominee in question seems
reasonable
3. Voting yes if so
The only way to counter the process-wonk culture at RFA is for a number
of non-process-wonks to consistently vote "yes" every time any of them
try to vote "no" for some bullshit reason, after first checking that the
nominee really isn't someone completely insane.
It's not like we're making any sort of lifelong commitment or appointing
Wikipedia dictators. IMO, anyone who's been around Wikipedia for a few
months and not done anything crazy should automatically get access to a
few additional admin tools. If they turn out to misuse them, we can
always de-admin them. Now that images can be undeleted, literally every
single admin action can be undone, usually easily, so it's not really a
problem.
-Mark