Well, I'm not sure - vandals don't tend to vote on
nominations for adminship, and having the occasional
disenting voice on it might spur the silent majority
to get more involved in their civic duty there. I
think most admins would be re-ellected, despite the
occasional personal grudge.
Mark R.
--- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Having fixed terms is an excellent idea. One or two
year appointments would be ample, and would not be
overly burdensom. A sysop whose term had expired
could
stand for re-election after (say) 6 months.
Mark
No offense, but I think this is an extremely bad
idea. With
maybe one or two exceptions, our sysops are
trustworthy,
reliable, and obedient to the rules. Having
elections, on the
other hand, would be like ringing the dinner bell
for everyone
troll or vandal with an axe to grind against a
particular sysop
(or sysops). In addition, the administrative
overhead would be
fearsome. I'd also like to point out that by your 1
sysop/1000
article standard, we're about 40 sysops below
strength.
Now, in the past, I have complained that a lot of
people are
getting nominated for adminship without being here
long enough.
I think this criticism is valid. I don't recognize
most of the names
coming up on the RFA these days, and that worries
me. I think
people need to be a bit more critical of new
requests, but I don't
think that means that we should be trying to cull
down the number
of sysops - don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater.
--Mark
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.