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.

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.

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.

Thank you. Also, again can you please add these "Editors" on the notorious list... "Walloon", (The ring leader), "Will beback" "Jzg" and "DTobias" (Yes, he did and does want inflamitory statements).
Thank you Herschelkrustofsky.

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.

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

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

"To each his own"

Choosing good, evil, or the lesser of two evils, would be tantamount to becoming like Wikipedia.

Anyone can edit and choose who is evil and who is good? No decision would make everyone happy.

I think the people that run this site have the final say in what direction we are going but I suspect that being a site that is critical of the ways in which Wikipedia operates, necessarily precludes us from starting to hand out awards for being "not so bad." The WP users that stand out as beacons of hope are nearly all, either banned, or on probation, or at the very least, shunned by the cabals / flies. The rest are still operating in a vacuum and living as fake puppets of their real life identities.

WoW hits the nail on the head. I've been described on WR as "One of the good guys" but I know there are also people here who think I'm an arrogant abusive blocker of The Truth, and there are plenty of people (think Giano, think Kelly Martin, think Vintagekits) who are thought of by some people as great crusaders for openness on Wikipedia, and by others (or sometimes even the same people) as disruptive trolls. Even if someone thinks the good guys should be rewarded, noone would ever agree on who the good guys are, and there's always going to be someone who loathes your particular candidate for "good guy".

The problem arises when one takes a continuous axis and arbitrarily splits it into two halves, with dramatically different treatment for opposite sides of the dividing line.

That practice, it turns out, is mathematically unwise.

Details here.

"There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys. There's only you and me and we just disagree."

Yes, we saw that with the poll on straight shooters.

It is NOT about "Good" or "Bad" guys. It is about what is incorrect and agendas. What is correct and accurate is correct, what is not correct is not correct. Everything else is irrelevant.