On 4/18/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 17/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There are serious opposes to current candidates for "sorry, you weren't very active in February." Could those who consider that admins might *benefit* from having, y'know, lives, care to go to WP:RFA and comment accordingly on said statements?
Unfortunately, judging from responses you've had so far, this seems only to attract people accusing you of trying to tell the bureaucrats what to think. I will however try and comment on the most egregious examples of bad opposes.
Yeah, this is why my proposal was to put up a statement in big red letters along the lines of "The only criterion for adminship is whether the candidate can be trusted to handle the tool well". RfA is not a referendum on how good or brilliant a user is. It's a referendum on whether he/she has the clue to handle the tools well. The onus is on opposers to show why "more involvement in the deletion process" or "more edits" will make a significant enough change for them to trust the candidate with the tools.
It's impossible to know everything about WP. There are a lot of areas of policy I'm not familiar with. Does this make me unqualified to handle my tools? Of course not - because I have enough clue to consult the relevant policy areas before doing something stupid. It's all about *trust* - not about experience. Experience is an indicator of whether the user can be trusted, but it is a means to the end of determining trustworthiness. Experience is not an end in itself.
Johnleemk