[WikiEN-l] No big deal?

Thu Jun 15 09:55:22 UTC 2006

On 6/15/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
> > * Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
>
> No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.

Yep. And if after a month as an admin, they still hadn't done it, you
could raise a complaint.

>
> > * Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
>
> That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should
> just know.

He didn't. And when told, he fixed it. So, we've voting no on people
who don't know everything there is to know about wikipedia?

>
> > * Has strong opinions on userboxes
>
> After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little
> twitchy about that one.

Has Cyde been desysopped? No? So, evidently strong opinions on
userboxes do not conflict significantly with being a decent admin.

> > * Hasn't done anything stupid
>
> Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as
> we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is
> something I like to se in admins.

Lots of users haven't done anything stupid. Should they all be admins?

> > I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon
> > themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going
> > through their entire history and producing a short report, which other
> > people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where
> > each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably
> > votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for
> people they already know about.

Tell me more about your system.

Steve