User:Animum/RFA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Anyone who casts even a casual eye on an RFA knows that the process is highly inefficient. Why? Because users who grossly exaggerate even tiniest deficiency cause incessant drama-mongering can cause a deserving user's RfA to spiral into failure. It really is too bad that bureaucrats often look over what's actually being said in an RfA and pass or fail it based on margins of support (see User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report to see what I mean). What's really lamentable is that it's widely accepted practice that users can vote neutral for, support, or oppose, a candidate for virtually any reason, hence the embellishments of truth in comments that seriously lack good rationales.

The process is going downhill, with so many people boisterously causing drama. It's apparent after reading archived discussions that many attempts have been made at reforming RFA, but with no avail, that refactoring the layout of an RFA won't help (looks don't matter when the underlying principle is flawed); we need a set of criteria, formed and refined by consensus, by which to judge a candidate for adminship. A sample consensus-formed criterion may be:

A user must have three (3) DYKs, two (2) GAs, or one (1) FA, at the time of submission of the RFA.

Having hard-and-fast, black-and-white criteria – which also will help steer potential administrators in the right direction while helping the encyclopedia – will reduce the dramatic, contentious aura surrounding the RFA process and also eliminate ad hominem opposes such as "Candidate is only so-and-so years old," an argument whose substratum is of little pertinence in the face of positive contribution.