Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-27769607-20160530030136/@comment-25648422-20160530042803

I say grammar is a reason that should still stay. And by grammar, I'm talking about understandable and neat English language. This should not include ocassional types, ocassional spelling errors, and ocassional word errors as even professional English speakers can still commit those mitlatakes.

Saying the user is your friend or enemy is automatically a disqualified reason for supporting or opposing a user who decides to run for a staff position.

However, I believe the reason of "there's too many staff members already" should be on the list of disqualified reasons to oppose a user who is running for a staff position. We don't even have staff limits. There were attempts of staff limits but they never succeeded. Besides, last year we have to demote a lot of staff members for the common reasons of not doing their duties well and for inactivity so I don't see why a user should be opposed for the reason of "there's too many staff members". To quote Someone456 regarding this, Someone456 said: Staff should be awarded based on contributions and attitude. Limiting the rest is unfair to new users who spend a lot of time to improve the wiki.

And lastly, the reason "power hungry because you're making a big leap to jump to another staff position". I mean just look:

>People see UG jump for administrator immediately and it's fine >People see other people take big leaps to a certain staff position and then they oppose.

Sorry but I find that case really hypocritical.

It doesn't matter what staff position you choose as long as you prove that you can handle that staff position. You can't, however, immediately be a bureucrat without being an administrator first as stated in the promotion guidelines. Does anyone know Phmpc? He made a big jump to become a content moderator and he still got the position. Not to mention, he received a 100% percentage of supports.