[WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide!

[Phil Sandifer]

On Apr 10, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

> On 4/10/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> And never mind the actual question RFA is supposed to answer.
>
> RfA is the way we gauge how the community feels about promoting a
> certain person to adminship.

No. RFA is a way we gauge whether a person fulfills the basic  
standards of trustworthiness necessary for us to trust them with  
admin powers. It's not a straw poll on whether someone should become  
an admin. People's arbitrary opinions on how many admins we have,  
what admins should do, and/or any of the other insanity at, say,  
[[Wikipedia: Admin coaching]] were never designed to be a part of RFA.

Unfortunately, the community, over time, began to stop doing the job  
of answering "is this person trustworthy enough to become an admin"  
and began doing the job of answering "is this person the ideal admin?"

Danny's RFA is particularly egregious, as one of our oldest, most  
respected, and most trusted community members found themselves on the  
receiving end of a referendum on [[WP:OFFICE]] under the guise of an  
RFA. For the bureaucrats to step in and look at the RFA with an eye  
towards the actual question it's supposed to answer is welcome. My  
only question is why it had to wait for Danny instead of any of the  
dozens of perfectly good Wikipedians who got screwed by the insanity  
that is RFA before now.

-Phil