On 04/05/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Except that in the case of RfA, we don't even have agreed principles that decisions should be based on, so all reasoning is good reasoning.
For some values of good, obviously.
My problem here is with the assertion that asking questions of candidates for adminship is in some way bad. I really can't see how that could be a valid viewpoint. One of the most pertinent questions I've seen asked of an admin candidate recently was whether they saw the role of admin more as that of policeman or janitor. Asking that question is entirely consistent with adminship being no big deal, also entirely consistent with knowing in advance to whom we are giving the tools, and what they will do with them. For my money we don't need policemen, but this is of course also just one person's view.
Well, I'm not sure how we got onto this exactly. Asking questions is fine. Voting no because someone doesn't answer them (or within 24 hours!) is not. Voting no because someone asked questions on someone else's RfA is not, either.
IMHO, having different users with different "standards" for admins is pretty unmanageable. Some people think 500 edits is enough. Some think 3000 is enough. Those are two valid viewpoints, but they should not be brought into conflict on each and every RfA. They should be debated once and for all, consensus reached, then everyone follow the group decision. So if the agreed threshold is 1000 edits, then no one should ever vote no on a candidate, citing lack of edits, if they have more than that.
Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and since voting is evil, it does not make sense to allow total freedom in voting on RfAs. It is not a desirable goal.
I wrote a whole spiel on this at talk:RfA.
Steve