On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:49 +0200, "Steve Bennett"
<stevagewp(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG