User:Pbsouthwood/RFA !voting

I am going to give my impressions, and freely admit that they are not even original research, and are grossly oversimplified.
 * 1) Most support is based on trusting the candidate to:
 * 2) Not break the wiki
 * 3) By accident, or
 * 4) By malicious intent, either by subverting to unbalanced points of view, or by technical means of mass destruction.
 * 5) To respect the work of good faith Wikipedians, and not put unreasonable or unnecessary obstacles in their way. This requires:
 * 6) Some competence in editing and knowledge of the customs and policies, which is generally shown by the ability to produce at least some good quality content, and supported by having done that for a reasonable amount of time.
 * 7) To deal with fellow Wikipedians civilly, politely, fairly and with a level of respect that they deserve. (Respect is earned, it is not an entitlement, fair treatment is a right here, and civility is an obligation. Politeness is a reflection more on the giver than the receiver.)
 * 8) This is probably gauged by observation of talk page discussions, observation of AGF, no personal attacks, rational discussion, logical argument, provision of evidence to support a point etc.
 * 9) To have enough common sense to not leap in out of ones depth when dealing with a new problem
 * 10) To listen to reason, and be flexible enough to change when the reasoning is sufficient.
 * 11) To understand logical reasoning and refrain from fallacious arguments.
 * 12) Opposes are somewhat more complex, I think they are based on:
 * 13) Fear that the person will do one of the things we don't want, and then will be difficult to get rid of. This is understandable, and in many cases reasonable and rational, as it is fairly difficult to de-admin for some causes. Intentional misuse of the tools is probably the easiest case. Accidental or inadvertent misuse of tools can happen too, but not usually repeatedly, and I don't think it would be too difficult to de-admin for persistent incompetence. (has it ever happened?)
 * 14) Resentment for past conflict. Sometimes justified, sometimes not.
 * 15) Fear of future conflict. Lack of confidence in the candidate's ability or willingness to deal civilly and fairly with fellow Wikipedians. Some of us do not suffer fools gladly, and some of us are those fools. It is probably best for all concerned if these groups are underrepresented in the mop and bucket brigade. Getting rid of the bit for these can be complicated, particularly as neither group are likely to be over-represented in the admins available for recall category.
 * 16) Concern that the candidate's grasp of the skills of reasoned discussion are inadequate, and that they may resort to fallacious arguments and bludgeoning with shortcuts to support their point.
 * 17) I don't think most Wikipedians are greatly concerned by the age of the candidate, or much by their politics or religion, race, gender, nationality etc. In many cases we don't know those things, and in any case they are disallowed as criteria, so no-one would admit to them. I have not noticed this to be significant.
 * 18) I also don't think that most users care what admin work the candidate intends to do, or how much they will do, or when they will do it, or how long they will continue to do it. They are also volunteers. Their willingness to do maintenance work is appreciated. Most Wikipedians do not want to be admins, and are happy for some other people to do that work, as long as it does not adversely affect them personally, so they are happy to give the mop to those they trust.
 * 19) More admins passing RfA more easily may well have a positive feedback effect. It would be preferable not to have a cyclic instability, but I don't think that is very likely.
 * 20) Would a general policy of making all admins subject to recall open the system to injustice? I doubt it. With reasonable criteria and reasonable closures I think that only the truly deserving cases would be shown the door. Boomerangs occur, and are very likely to hit malicious recall attempts.
 * 21) Is the current system broken? Probably not the RfA concept and process, so much as some of the people misusing it, either maliciously or incompetently. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference.