Content deleted Content added
ClubOranje (talk | contribs) →What I think: CE. Sorry, thought that should be there..... |
|||
Line 21:
==What I think==
'''I take an active interest in RfA''' because as a relatively new user, and fast learner and religiously sticking to the rules, I was taken to task by a couple of really mean, team tagging teenage admins so I wanted to find out who and what sysops are and how on earth such miscreants (now long since departed and/or desysoped) could become admins, so I discovered [[WT:RfA|the RfA talk page]] and made my first edit to it in early 2010. See the [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Wikipedia+talk%3ARequests+for+adminship&project=en.wikipedia.org Activity on that talk page] which was once the busiest forum on Wikipedia has diminished in parallel proportions to the general interest in RfA since the watershed year of 2007.
I then started this page long before I ever dreamed of being an admin myself. I never wanted to be one, but I was asked so many times that I thought I would finally put it to the test. As it turned out, my own RfA was quite contentious, but it passed with what was a high turnout for pre 2015 reforms and it passed with flying colours. I'm not convinced that the current system is in the best interest of the project as it is today. The best and most essentially encyclopaedic articles of social, scientific, geographical, and biographical content have probably been submitted and the encyclopaedia now needs more persistent and accurate quality control to keep it free of spam, copyvio, sockpuppetry, vandalism, tabloid news, and people, bands, and companies of doubtful notability.<ref>(February 16, 2011), [http://hblog.org/writing/the-missing-wikipedians/ The Missing Wikipedians] Retrieved December 31, 2017.</ref> Equally important, it also needs people who can have access to some parts of the software for carrying out non contentious office work. This all needs some editors who can be trusted with some special tools, and to use them intelligently, with reasonable accuracy, and in the best interest of the encyclopedia and not to their own ends. It is assumed also that such people would be a role model, and lead by example. Unfortunately, too many admins aren't, and they stir up as much ill feeling as others attempt to combat.
| |||