On 10/20/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I generally only participate in RfAs where I know the editor who has been nominated (and thus feel qualified to make a judgment), or where I am so impressed that I feel justified in making a judgment despite not knowing them.
I may be setting the bar for participation too low here, and I am sure that there are many deserving candidates who I have not supported who turn out to be great admins whom I work well with once they are promoted. Nevertheless, my underlying criterion remains whether I trust the person to exercise good judgment.
I figure either I should know someone previously, or spend the time to research them enough to determine if they have good judgement.
For many of the RFAs, I let it go for a while and determine that they aren't showing me enough within the RFA itself to justify me investing a good fraction of an hour to study their editing habits.
I'm not sure if that's good for the process overall or not. But I don't have the time to personally follow up reading the last 500 edits made by everyone who gets nominated. To some degree, I rely on the process of others who know the person coming along and either posting a good enough "Support" comment that it piques my interest or posting something in the "Oppose" section that attracts interest.