Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-24325144-20150106201659/@comment-25606771-20150123191429

If there are no polices and only guidelines, then who is anyone to say an editor is adding something wrong? For instance, with over-linking. If it's only a guideline to link once in an article, then it's not wrong if someone links more than once in an article since it's only a guideline to link once, but it's not a policy that's to be enforced.

I don't think promoting someone to any staff position should solely be based on good faith. Some editors just want to edit and have no desire to be promoted. I believe one should gain trust from the community, be able to tackle the task at hand, and have a good editing ethic before being considered for the tools of an admin, rollback, etc. I don't see a problem with having a discussion and vote on things that concern the wiki. If anything, a discussion adds more insight than plain voting. In a discussion one can voice why they feel someone or another is or isn't a good fit for the task/role.

I'm sitting here looking at the "Policies and Guidelines" and most of the these pages seem to have been written by Deyvid Petteys, and that was back in 2012. So, they policies itself are old and outdated. Also, why is it called policies and guidelines? Shouldn't it be either policies or guidelines? I think if any one of you who wants to take on the task/responsibly of being the next admin, it would be a good idea to come up with a mock-up policy/guideline, so we have something solid to see of what new changes would be implemented according to your vision. We as a community can then discuss it.