On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:43:33 -0500, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG