On May 3, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
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.
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales