On 3/31/06, Ilmari Karonen <lists(a)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