On 7/4/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are many axis to consider harm.
For example, after making 2000+ edits, failing to abuse procedure, no
vandalism, etc.. A user goes up for adminship and is denied. We have
500 admins, why not one more?
*Most* people would feel hurt by that.
I'd call that harm.
Obviously we can't just make everyone admins because their feelings
would be hurt otherwise... but I think that in cases where a user is
likely to abuse the tools after they've been around long enough for 2k
edits that it is abundantly clear. In these cases we see unanimous or
near unanimous opposition.
In other cases, I think we should give the user a chance to prove
themselves as an admin. That the risk of a vandal becoming an admin is
infinitesimal at that point, and the the risk of bruising a valuable
editors ego is more important.
If an editor's ego is bruised by failing their first RfA, then I'd say
that either their ego is too fragile for them to be a good admin, or
they bring too much ego to the project in the first place.
Reaction to a failed admin bid is probably the best indicator of who's
likely to be a good or bad admin. Too bad we can't see that reaction
before selecting admins. ;-)
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused