SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 18:35, August 16, 2008
, 16 years ago→opening back up nominations?
(→opening back up nominations?: well said) |
|||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
:Well said. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | :Well said. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
I have reopened the page. We cannot close the community process unless there is consensus to do so. Three editors does not represent consensus from the entire community. Firstly, we can never have "too many" sysops if all of them use their tools properly. We can always use more to block vandals and clean up page histories (an important issue at the moment). As for people just rallying their friends, that is why you can oppose RFAs. If someone doesn't deserve adminship, just oppose them. There is no reason to close all requests just because a few people don't deserve it. It is also noteworthy that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOP#No_big_deal adminship is not a big deal]. It should not entitle extra decision making authority, and the policy should be to give the tools to any editor who has earned the community's trust. Also, I don't think it should matter who the nominator is. Therefore, it shouldn't be self nom only. However, the nominee has every right to decline an RFA, and should not be sysopped unless they approve of it. [[User:Dtm142|Dtm142]] ([[User talk:Dtm142|talk]]) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | |||