User:Bullzeye/RFA

The issue here, as I see, it is one of basic sociology as it applies to the Wikipedia community.

RfA has undergone a major shift in scope and attitude from the days of "Adminship is no big deal". RfA is, manifestly, a VERY big deal these days. I would argue it is the most one-sided level of scrutiny any editor is ever going to receive. By that I mean even being on the negative end of an RFC or ArbCom case imbues a user with more "rights", in a sense, than an RfA, because all comments receive the same scrutiny and are held to the same standards of truthfulness, WP:AGF, relevance, etc.

This is not the case in an RfA, where consensus has repeatedly supported any user's right to make any comment they please that doesn't grossly violate WP:NPA (and often even then) without any need for explanation. Whereas, in the same situation, the applicant is expected to respond politely and promptly to any question he is asked, before then having those responses critiqued word-for-word against the guidelines, policies, and even essays of the Wikipedia project space. Also, don't forget Meatball, which is a popular Bible to hold up against a user.

For example, lets say I was to post on editor Mother Theresa's RfA: "Reject in strongest possible terms - Editor's contribs are shameful, and suggest an unrepentant POV warrior with a chip on her shoulder and a major power complex. There's no way she deserves the tools, not now or ever, and I'm frankly shocked she hasn't been indefed already." This would probably cause a flurry of back-and-forths between various editors and the nominee (which Mother Theresa would have to respond to exceedingly politely, or risk earning more novotes), but I would certainly not be punished or forced to substantiate or redact my comments; it simply does not happen, because consensus has determined that it should not be required to happen.

If I made the same comment on an RFC or an ArbCom case, my post would certainly be redacted and I would likely be blocked for disruption, violating WP:NPA, and poisoning the well unless my claims were manifestly backed up with inline diffs and corroborative public commentary by of several people in good standing that agreed with me.

In the end, what we are left with is the difference between a struggle session and a Congressional inquiry. While both are public investigations prompted and driven by the collective desire of the community to subject an individual's historical and current responses, thoughts, and attitudes to public scrutiny in order to ostensibly protect the greater community from unscrupulous individuals, they are awfully different in practice.