On 3/31/06, Ilmari Karonen lists@vyznev.net wrote:
When a nomination is uncontroversial, the first dozen or so voters tend to say most of what needs to be said. After that most votes gradually become "per X above", simply because there's no point in restating what someone else already said better.
Except that it demonstrates that they really have thought about what they're voting on, and aren't just being a sheep ;)
So you're essentially proposing that candidates should only be nominated by someone who is already an admin, and that the nominating admin would be expected to carry out a background check on the nominee.
Yep, but to clarify, the "background check" is not a pass/fail, it's a short report summarising all of the user's contributions (perhaps month by month?), whether good or bad. To give any debate over the user a bit of a starting point. Perhaps it could look something like this:
March 2006: Two semi-edit wars on [[Spock]] and [[Star Trek]], accused of violating NPOV. Large number of apparently helpful contributions on [[Brian Peppers]] and [[Moldova]]. :Yes, I saw this edit war on [[Spock]], he behaved like a total prat. [[User:PeanutGallery1]]... April 2006:No contributions, except for deleting the word "anti-semite" from 6 articles.
Steve