On 6/15/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Bad reasons I've seen for voting against:
- Didn't have email set (no one had told him to)
No but it is generaly considered polite to do so.
Yep. And if after a month as an admin, they still hadn't done it, you could raise a complaint.
- Had a web link in signature (no one had told him not to)
That would generaly be considered to be one of those things you should just know.
He didn't. And when told, he fixed it. So, we've voting no on people who don't know everything there is to know about wikipedia?
- Has strong opinions on userboxes
After Cyde it is understandable that people are going to be a little twitchy about that one.
Has Cyde been desysopped? No? So, evidently strong opinions on userboxes do not conflict significantly with being a decent admin.
- Hasn't done anything stupid
Pretty good reason in fact. Admin powers should go to as many users as we can trust with them. The ability to avoid doing stupid things is something I like to se in admins.
Lots of users haven't done anything stupid. Should they all be admins?
I've also suggested that one or two people should take it upon themselves to really study the candidate over several days, going through their entire history and producing a short report, which other people can base their votes on. Rather than the current system where each person independently supposedly checks the history, and probably votes based on the first 3 edits they see.
Steve
Or you could encourage people to use my system of only voteing for people they already know about.
Tell me more about your system.
Steve