On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:43:33 -0500, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I am sorely tempted to add "Has displayed sufficient common sense as to have not read the inordinate amount of crap on this page and its subpages" as a criterion. As always, helping Wikipedia to demonstrate a point.
In this case we agree completely :-)
My admin criteria are, roughly: * Have seen them around, so I know them from a hole in the ground * Have seen nothing that scares me
As long as they have been around for a few months and I've actually had civil discussion with them somewhere (more or less anywhere) I will vote support.
It is a source of some annoyance to me that we rejected Stephen B Streater, especially, and also Jeff Raymond, both of whom I believe would have made excellent admins, and neither of whom would, in my judgment, be likely to damage the project by any ill-advised action. Stephen's RFA was the worst example of RFA utterly missing the point that I can recall.
This despite the fact that I can hardly recall a single occasion on which I've agreed with Jeff. Who needs another cabal?
Guy (JzG)