Board Thread:Spammer and Vandal Reports/@comment-4009269-20140622162659/@comment-11447684-20140623054055

DeathZombi wrote: Well I think we should demote him! He is so obnoxious and unfair. He says he is 17! Well I am younger than him and I act more mature than him! Ya know just because you have blah blah edits, It doesn't mean you are worthy of the position!

We should have a new policy for that. Edits seem to have a more "unexplained" thing around it.

It should be based around these questions?

"Do you have the maturity and responsibility to control these powers?"

"Do you get along well with fellow Wikians?"

"Do you command respect to yourself and to other Wikians?"

"If you have an illness (Like Jackninja or WM43) do you manage to get the illness not involved in your Wikia activities?"

"If you have prieviously got blocked or banned before but redeemed yourself afterwards (ex. being EPICMAN) did you redeem yourself enough to show trust and integrity to other staff members?"

Welp I am out of questions. But lets have this scenario.

Let say there is User A who has good and helpful edits but is very solitary, brutish and is a bit rude and slightly immature and he asks for B-Crat (saying he has the other positions.)

User B has great edits but they are insufficent for Bureaucrat but he shows good judgement, has the maturity, does not show and power abuses and he is a friendly user.

Which user would you want?

So this is the problem, Having the edit thing is incomplete. We should make other factors so a user can completely qualify for a position. This exactly.