Philip Welch wrote:
On May 3, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Trial by fire. If someone can't take the "abuse" of a standard RfA, they can't take the ongoing abuse that admins take all the time from vandals, trolls, and other trouble-makers.
Personally, I went through RfA just like a lot of people here. You don't see me whining about how I was bludgeoned over the head. RfA is supposed to be a tough process to get through.
Oh, I'm not objecting to it being rough. I'm objecting to someone actually being opposed for RfA for petty reasons
That seems fair, but RfA is a community based process, not a policy based process. With a community based process, you have to allow people to use criteria you disagree with in exchange for allowing consensus. With a policy based process, criteria might be more rational, but you might lose consensus.
The community is full of trolls - to the point where they claim that they've been made admins. Of course, they could just be trolling, but if that doesn't say that RFA needs a sanity check, I don't know /what/ does.