[WikiEN-l] RfA reform

[Ray Saintonge]

Sam Blacketer wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:50:29 +0100, "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>RfA should be reduced to a determination of whether the user is
>>trustworthy or not. Their ability to make intelligent decisions should
>>come into it somewhere.
>>    
>>
>That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to
>be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made
>in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance,
>instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were
>asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be
>indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the
>heading over the top of the !votes.
>
It should be enough for a small number of existing admins (perhaps as 
many as 10) to say that they have reviewed the person's history, and 
find no evidence that he has acted in a way that would be harmful to the 
project.  A reasonable and objective level of minimum participation 
could be warranted, but that should be specified ahead of time so that 
the individual can know where the goalposts are.

A willingness, need or desire to use the entire range of admin tools or 
any specific tool should not matter.  The important thing is not whether 
he would use them; it is whether he would abuse them.

Meaningful opposition should be based on fact.  Mistrusting a person 
because you experienced a psychic vision telling you to do so is not 
particularly strong evidence.  Opposing someone because you do not 
"feel" that he needs the tools, or that you do not know him, or he has a 
different opinion from yours on matters of profound interest to you are 
entirely subjective.  Opposition should point to specific examples that 
show where the person has acted in an untrustworthy manner.

Unfortunately, the existing RfA system has developed its own inertia 
that makes it very difficult to stop without the courageous acts of a 
few key individuals.

Ec