Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/31/06, Ilmari Karonen <lists(a)vyznev.net>
wrote:
When a nomination is uncontroversial, the first
dozen or so voters tend
to say most of what needs to be said. After that most votes gradually
become "per X above", simply because there's no point in restating what
someone else already said better.
Except that it demonstrates that they really have thought about what
they're voting on, and aren't just being a sheep ;)
Heh, someone suggested a similar overhaul for AfD about six months ago,
and they got shot down in flames.
So you're
essentially proposing that candidates should only be nominated
by someone who is already an admin, and that the nominating admin would
be expected to carry out a background check on the nominee.
Yep, but to clarify, the "background check" is not a pass/fail, it's a
short report summarising all of the user's contributions (perhaps
month by month?), whether good or bad. To give any debate over the
user a bit of a starting point. Perhaps it could look something like
this:
March 2006: Two semi-edit wars
Ouch. What's a semi-edit? :)
(That should be semi edit-wars...)
on [[Spock]] and [[Star Trek]], accused of violating
NPOV.
Presumably at this point you would see diffs where the alleged NPOV
violations take place.
On a side note, I don't see why people are so damned precious about
making sure that NPOV is perfectly applied for 100% of their edits - so
what if someone's edit biases the article a little bit, if they've just
added a rather large amount of useful information? I thought this was a
wiki - someone else can always fix it later...
Of course, doing nothing but [[biasing]] an article is clearly a
violation of NPOV - but accidentaly introducing bias into an article
shouldn't be punished if the editor has acted in good faith.
Large number of apparently helpful contributions on
[[Brian Peppers]] and [[Moldova]].
Good. Demonstrates ability to communicate with other editors on
controversial articles. (Unless their contributions were "{{db-bio}}"
and "#REDIRECT [[Romania]]" respectively.)
:Yes, I saw this edit war on [[Spock]], he behaved
like a total prat.
[[User:PeanutGallery1]]...
Presumably there would also be "I asked this user to apologise [42] and
he refused/did so [43]. ~~~~" with this.
April 2006:No contributions, except for deleting the
word
"anti-semite" from 6 articles.
You also are using English instead of Esperanto :)
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP