On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
? You appear to have lost faith in Wikipedia here.
No I just accept that admins pretty much have teniture. You can remove
them but it isn't easy
"Would be nice" -> "if he failed to
do that, we vote no"? Anyway,
since nofollow is now enabled for talk pages, it is unlikely to be a
problem.
Anyway, I don't really understand your line of argument here. Are you
saying that candidates that fail to do what "would be nice" should be
rejected? Are you saying that such minor offenses that are corrected
merely by asking the person to stop doing it, are still reasons to
vote no? Why do we even care about such tiny things, just because
they're done by RfA candidates?
I would be unlikly to vote over a single issue like that but I would
view it as evidence they they had not read the admins reading list
prior to either nominating or accepting the nomination.
Nope, but it would be much better to facilitate the
process for
desysopping people who behave badly, than not promoting them out of
fear that they "could" behave badly, because they have strong opinions
on things.
Strong opinions per say have not historicaly been a problem. Strong
opinions on the way wikipedia should be run tend to be more of a
problem
So a user who has been around for 3 years, turning 5
pokemon articles
into FAs and decorating his userpage would be a good admin - assuming
that's all he's done.
Yup. Probably able to work with other people (getting things to FA
without working with other people is posible but not in a subject area
as popular with pokemon) and the person will understand at least part
of our fair use rules.
Surely we can do better than promoting admins on the
basis of what they *haven't* done.
Not really. Adminship should be as widely held as posible.
Would you like to take this further and make an RfA
guideline that
people should primarily vote on people they already know, and if not,
to tread warily and heavily research candidates before voting?
Steve
Not a massive fan of guidlines (no one seems to read them unless they
are hopeing to use them against someone) so probably not but I would
support the general idea.
--
geni