[WikiEN-l] Thoughts on the process of requesting adminship

Thu Jun 30 23:47:39 UTC 2005

Timwi (timwi at gmx.net) [050701 09:43]:

Indeed. The present RFA procedure is horribly topheavy and
instruction-crept.

> As a first step, I would like to suggest to make it policy that "oppose" 
> votes must be accompanied by reasoning indicating the nominee's past 
> wrongdoing or potential for wrongdoing. It should not be permitted to 
> vote "oppose" just because someone has "only a few hundred edits", as 
> this is neither a crime nor a sign of bad faith. As a safeguard against 
> crackpots nominating themselves straight after their first edit, 
> however, I suggest that candidates must be nominated by an existing admin.

Sounds good to me.

> In the long-term, my suggestion is to abolish the requirement for 
> majority vote. Anyone who is already an admin is trusted; I think 
> someone nominated by an existing admin should therefore be given a 
> certain "initial trust" too. Thus, admins should be able to just appoint 
> other admins.

I'd like to work our way to that stage slowly ;-)

> As for removing adminship, ideally I would like to see the 
> process closely resemble that for blocking users. The things we have 
> collected at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] have evolved over time; a 
> similar "deadminning policy", containing various behaviours that warrant 
> deadminning without a vote, is surely conceivable. In particular, I can 
> imagine the 3RR apply to page-protection, deletion/undeletion, or 
> blocking/unblocking other users. Having more admins, and therefore more 
> sensible admins ;-), makes this much easier to keep under control by the 
> community.

Temp deadminning in the software? Hmm ...

- d.