[WikiEN-l] Worthy admins? (was "The userbox fad")

[Ryan Delaney]

On 1/4/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at 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