Bitcoin Wiki:Administrator nominations
Is is my belief that the wiki is currently under-moderated, and that a few more wiki admins are needed.
This page will contain serious nominations to the role of wiki admins. Anyone can nominate anybody else or himeself, but the page will be kept clean and people without significant contribution or acknowledgement to Bitcoin will be removed from it.
ThePiachu
I, ripper234, nominate ThePiachu as a wiki admin.
- His contribution to Bitcoin is significant (it includes an academic paper about Bitcoin)
- I trust him with the role of admin
- I believe he has shown interest in the role
- I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
- I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. Ripper234 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
- The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
- Comment: The Recent Changes page shows an astonishing amount of spam users registering on an ongoing basis. The payment system does prevent them from making edits, but with the falling value of Bitcoin, 0.01BTC is less than a dollar, and sock-puppetry is not prevented.
- The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
- I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. Ripper234 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
Cryptal
I would like to nominate myself for the limited role of moderator. I've recently come out of lurking to join the Bitcoin community, but I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and I'm very familiar with MediaWiki markup, encyclopedic style, Wikipedia policies, and dispute resolution.