User:SoWhy/On RFB

I have previously stated this and I think it needs repeating: We have elevated crats to a sort of demigod status of admins, a who is who of those who managed to annoy no one with any particular strong opinion or who has made the most inter-wiki connections and we have completely forgotten what the reason for this user group was in the first place. We have reached a state where the same candidate can manage to be opposed for being too bureaucratic and not being too bureaucratic enough, for participating in too many or too few RFAs, for being too bland or too outspoken about an issue, in short a state where we will not manage to find any candidates willing to run anymore since no one will dare to try it anymore. Crats were designed as a sort of admin with an extra button that for its nature could not be entrusted to any admin but which is basically a dull technical job (as Jimbo puts it). Since then, crats have got two more dull technical buttons, renames and bot flags.

Still the community has somehow arrived at a point where they will not trust an admin with a good history of judging consensus to handle judging consensus in those areas because they have made that edit a year ago or have spent that much time at this part of the project or hold a particular opinion one disagrees with. I am not saying that high standards are a bad thing in general. But standards need to be at some level that at least a decent percentage of admins can get there (imho every admin who has a decent record of using the tools without problems should be granted the crat flag). No one wants admins as crats that have a history of misusing the tools or other problems. The perfect admin candidate is clueful, civil, helpful and active. But the perfect crat candidate has to be trusted yet not have too many "hats", have their own opinions yet be bland, active at the crat areas yet not too much, bureaucratic yet not bureaucratic. Unfortunately, no living human being can fit such contradicting expectations.

Of course even if a candidate fit those requirements, someone would argue that there is "no need" for more crats which the candidate can't even influence. I think "need" has nothing to do with it. We don't promote admins based on the need for them and nor should we think in such terms for crats. If we don't have work for crats to perform, that's great. But I'd rather have a lot of crats with little to do than a few that then might be overwhelmed. Also, please do not forget, the crat-flag is just that, an additional flag. It does not remove the admin bit so those users can and will still perform admin duties. They just could do some more things if needed.

Disclaimer:
Yes, I admit, I have contemplated running for cratship myself, since I have been asked by various people to do so and since the crat areas, especially WP:CHU, constantly suffer from backlogs. But honestly, I don't know why I should bother. Everyone who knows me knows that I have never had a problem to hold a certain opinion and certainly I have never claimed to favor a certain point of view because of any wiki-political reasons. Still I have (as far as I know) also a track record of not a single admin action to further any viewpoint I hold. So, in my little dreamworld, if someone with strong views on certain topics and a clear track record of never misusing the tools to further these views, with a history of judging consensus and working in crat-related areas, ran for cratship, I'd probably support them. In my humble opinion, crats don't need to be without opinions, they just need to be able to separate them from their task, just like admins do and a requirement of skills in the areas related to cratship is the only thing that should separate a RFB from a RFA. I would feel confident to meet such requirements - but I also know that I will probably never meet those requirements the community currently seems to expect.