On 1/4/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
My personal policy is to only vote for a candidate if I can personally vouch for their editing, conflict handling, and janitorial abilities. There was a time when I would support every candidate that looked ready. I eventually realized that was only hurting the 'pedia, since even a good editor can go a bit crazy with admin tools due to a lack of understanding.
I vote this way too, but often that just means that the people who support everything will get their way, because I don't vote in most RFA's. Does that mean we should be voting oppose more, then? Or should we vote neutral with "I don't know this editor, so I can't support" to raise awareness of the idea that people shouldn't support editors they haven't personally interacted with?
I'm worried that a combination of the two -- a 30 support-vote minimum, and voters who won't support anyone they don't personally know -- might make it /too/ difficult to become an admin, though.
Ryan