On 04/05/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
Except that in
the case of RfA, we don't even have agreed principles
that decisions should be based on, so all reasoning is good reasoning.
For some values of good, obviously.
My problem here is with the assertion that asking questions of
candidates for adminship is in some way bad. I really can't see how
that could be a valid viewpoint. One of the most pertinent questions
I've seen asked of an admin candidate recently was whether they saw
the role of admin more as that of policeman or janitor. Asking that
question is entirely consistent with adminship being no big deal, also
entirely consistent with knowing in advance to whom we are giving the
tools, and what they will do with them. For my money we don't need
policemen, but this is of course also just one person's view.
Well, I'm not sure how we got onto this exactly. Asking questions is
fine. Voting no because someone doesn't answer them (or within 24
hours!) is not. Voting no because someone asked questions on someone
else's RfA is not, either.
IMHO, having different users with different "standards" for admins is
pretty unmanageable. Some people think 500 edits is enough. Some think
3000 is enough. Those are two valid viewpoints, but they should not be
brought into conflict on each and every RfA. They should be debated
once and for all, consensus reached, then everyone follow the group
decision. So if the agreed threshold is 1000 edits, then no one should
ever vote no on a candidate, citing lack of edits, if they have more
than that.
Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and since voting is evil, it does
not make sense to allow total freedom in voting on RfAs. It is not a
desirable goal.
I wrote a whole spiel on this at talk:RfA.
Steve