Notable Editors FAQ Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The basic guideline for assigning a Wikipedia editor "notable editor" status is that the editor in question has had at least 5 threads devoted to his or her conduct in the regular "editors" forum. If you believe that a new editor qualifies, please contact a staff member or initiate a discussion here.

[Mndrew]

Can this policy be used to create a subforum for people who are generally viewed in a positive light by this Review?

Of course, I speak hypothetically.

[guy]

Can this policy be used to create a subforum for people who are generally viewed in a positive light by this Review?

Of course, I speak hypothetically.

There are of course plenty of good, well-intentioned admins on WP. Human nature being what it is, we get few threads about them. Were we to have six threads about say Taxman, it would certainly be appropriate to give him a forum.

[Mndrew]

Can this policy be used to create a subforum for people who are generally viewed in a positive light by this Review?

Of course, I speak hypothetically.

There are of course plenty of good, well-intentioned admins on WP. Human nature being what it is, we get few threads about them. Were we to have six threads about say Taxman, it would certainly be appropriate to give him a forum.

With that in consideration, Cla68 qualifies for such a thread. He has seven threads in Editors, two of which are already in the JzG board. I'll go ahead and vouch for a Cla68 forum.

Should you take this vote, I would advise changing the "Discussion of editors, particularly Wikipedia administrators, who have become notorious, often for the abuse of Wikipedia policy to further an agenda" to something more inclusive - I believe we can agree that Charles doesn't fall into that category.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Should you take this vote, I would advise changing the "Discussion of editors, particularly Wikipedia administrators, who have become notorious, often for the abuse of Wikipedia policy to further an agenda" to something more inclusive - I believe we can agree that Charles doesn't fall into that category.

Our primary mission is to expose and criticize corruption at Wikipedia. I'm all for giving credit to the good guys there (who are good primarily because they, too, are not afraid to expose and criticize the corruption.) However, there have been expressions of concern that we are cluttering the site with too many subfora, so I think that it's unlikely that we will start any "good guys" subfora at this time.

[Mndrew]

Should you take this vote, I would advise changing the "Discussion of editors, particularly Wikipedia administrators, who have become notorious, often for the abuse of Wikipedia policy to further an agenda" to something more inclusive - I believe we can agree that Charles doesn't fall into that category.

Our primary mission is to expose and criticize corruption at Wikipedia. I'm all for giving credit to the good guys there (who are good primarily because they, too, are not afraid to expose and criticize the corruption.) However, there have been expressions of concern that we are cluttering the site with too many subfora, so I think that it's unlikely that we will start any "good guys" subfora at this time.

Would a split into the "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" be advisable at all? They could either be contained both in Notable Editors, or the Notable Editors forum scrapped and those two forums placed in its former nest.

[Moulton]

Would a split into the "Bad Guys" and "Good Guys" be advisable at all?

"Nothing is Good or Bad, but Thinking makes it so." —Shakespeare

"Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error." —Taoist Proverb