[WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide!

[Ron Ritzman]

On 4/10/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?"

ALERT! Here comes another one of my goofy ideas.

If the Bureaucrats themselves feel as you do that the question to
answer in an RFA is whether or not a candidate can be trusted with the
tools, then one way for them to really drive the point home to those
"voting" for "other reasons" is to pick a potentially controversial
RFA, that is one that is likely to generate a lot of "opposes", and
move any "votes" (support or oppose) that do not address the issue of
trust to the talk page.

OK, fireproof underwear on, flame away.