Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-5939269-20160504224254/@comment-5407503-20160505144653

Protanly wrote: The word administrator is equivalent to words such as supervisor, director, leader, overseer. Case in point, it simply isn't part of the job of administrator to make edits, and while any administrator could go out of their way to do so, it shouldn't be required.

We need to stop looking at mainspaces as the ultimate point of staff positions that don't need them. They shouldn't be the deciding factor of how we promote people that are deserving of such positions, especially when there are so many other ways to determine how fit and ready a person is for such a job. Your argument is reasonable. However, it's not an easy task to set some clear and objective guidelines to determine whether a person is trustworthy, maturity, and kind. Can you give us more ideas?

At least, I think the our current system does not have some serious flaws (it doesn't mean it will be unchanged). As we can see that voters also consider non-mainspace factors of candidates. There're some examples that people with sufficient m-edits but they were opposed.