On 4/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
My whole take on the current crop of RFA voters is that they don't buy the "no big deal" myth and I think on that point they are right. Adminship is a big deal despite all the effort to claim it isn't. Ironically, the RFA gang themselves make it even more of a big deal with with their strict requirements. Anybody who successfully runs the RFA gauntlet must really be "shot hit".
Let's define what a "big deal" is. Is it sufficiently a big deal that if we agree this fellow is competent to hold the tools, and his past behaviour has shown him to be trustworthy, we should reject him anyway because he fails some requirement like insufficient vandal reverts or not writing enough FAs? Learning on the job is not harmful in the long run, because we can infer from a user's past behaviour as to how long it takes them to learn something, and how much trouble they cause through this learning process. If someone's taken months to adapt to NPOV and basic editing policies/guidelines, obviously he's not suited for adminship. But if he's picked them up quickly and with little fuss, it's safe to presume he can pick up new skills like vandal reversion easily.
We have to stop this idea that learning on the job is impossible or that admins need to be well-versed in a multitude of areas. The most important thing about an admin is that an admin can be trusted - trusted to handle the tools well, and trusted to learn how to use them properly. If we can trust someone, why make him jump through hoops?
Johnleemk