Meta talk:Requests for adminship/Archives/2006

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Policy Proposal

I would like to propose the removal of the requirement that sysops here must first be a sysop on another foundation wiki, for the reasons discussed above. --Kingboyk 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

~~PRO~~ --Marbot 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC) I would rather see the number of required edits be moved up to 500 or more instead.
Oppose More experience taught me to change my opinion, but I still strongly believe that the initial number of required edits should be moved up to 500 in minimum --Marbot 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes/Support The wording "wikipedia or related project" is so ambiguous that we ought to simply drop it. --Kernigh 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Contra Prefer to add "a/o developer".--Aphaia 04:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Contra. I think it's valuable in that it makes sure people that are admins here are experienced. If you don't want to contribute significantly enough to other Wikimedia projects to become an admin there, why would you need adminship here? - Taxman 17:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My opinion isn't worth much, but I don't like the suggestion that becoming an admin is the only way to "contribute significantly" to a project. Surely we should discourage people from applying for adminship for bad reasons such as "demonstrating commitment" or whatever. Stevage 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We should have people who can do the job..--Hillgentleman|書 14:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Suffrage

I don't understand who is/isn't allowed to vote here. Shouldn't it be spelt out above? Stevage 09:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy says this "All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate and give their opinion on the candidate." Though clearly votes from people without a lot of meta participation are looked down upon. - Taxman 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)