On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:49 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
There are a number of "RfA regulars". They, IMHO, tend to be the most demanding, tend to throw their weight around the most, and are the most resistant to any idea of reducing the discretion given to voters in RfA.
You may well be right. I only vote for (or against) editors I know or whose history I have reviewed to the point where my (fairly low) criteria are satisfied. I cleave to the "no big deal" rule; as long as they are productive and not edit warriors, give them the mop. Worst case, they do Bad Things and we take it away again. Best case: the backlog for admin actions gets shortened.
I think that my real criteria are that someone is prepared to be accountable for their actions, and will acknowledge a mistake with good grace; that demands a certain volume of edits to prove. But not that many. Again: no big deal.
Guy (JzG)