[WikiEN-l] Bureaucrats decide!

[Ray Saintonge]

Ron Ritzman wrote:

>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.
>
That sounds like a "make work" proposal.  I read it as an honest 
suggestion.  Thus, I don't agree with it, but see no reason to flame 
about it either.

Ec