User:Sxeptomaniac/RfA-Reform

RfA can't be fixed by changing process. The root of the problem isn't the process, it's the expectations and attitudes of many of those participating.

Expectations for admins
I've frequently seen comments by various Wikipedians who have expectations for the admins that are, frankly, juvenile. Admins are often treated as if they are to be the only adults in a sea of children, taking abuse on a regular basis but without leeway for even minor mistakes.

On the other hand, it's clear that patience for mistakes by an admin should not be infinite, particularly if said admin is not willing to admit mistakes. Blaming everything on trolls is not particularly helpful.

Intolerance for different editor types
Another unrealistic expectation is that an applicant have significant experience in nearly all aspects of Wikipedia. If a person has shown themselves to be trustworthy and knowledgeable regarding the fundamental policies, is there any reason they can't learn other admin tasks as they go, if they so choose? There are plenty of avenues for an editor to learn process over time.

I've noticed many editors are extremely focused on edit counts, expecting that an applicant be involved in almost every major aspect of Wikipedia. There is no reason why we can't promote editors who specialize, even the "social" ones.

There is more to building an encyclopedia than just building articles, even if that is the primary purpose, and only promoting cookie-cutter admins is to the long-term detriment of the project, in my opinion.

Lazy RfA participants
A number of people call it editcountitis; I call it laziness. It's easy to look at the edit count tools and see numbers, but takes more work to make a decision as to whether or not the person might be a good admin.

Now that I've probably got your attention, I will waffle a bit and allow that some use the edit count as a baseline and also do their research. However, I believe that there are far too many taking part in RfAs who are just making a quick vote, rather than making any real consideration of the quality of the applicant. I suspect a number of these are simply interested in raising their own edit count in order to show off what good editors they are when it's their turn to apply for adminship.

The other problem with requiring high edit counts is that it tends to reward those who focus on pop culture, rather than academic, articles. It's quite easy to rack up a high edit count when giving a rundown of the latest season of Lost, or detailing all of the Pokemon, but a well-researched addition to the Siege of Zara, for example, tends to take a bit more time (even if the information can be found online, it is often more difficult to find in searches). By focusing so closely on edit counts, Wikipedians are encouraged to focus on pop culture and similarly easily found information, rather than deepening the more obscure information.

Conclusion
There is no easy solution to the problem. If the current expectations, flawed though they may be, are enough to keep Wikipedia working, then there will not be enough of a reason to make any changes.

I do think that we should consider discouraging the use of edit counting tools. They only serve to focus people on specific numbers, and it's easy enough to figure out if an applicant meets a 1000 or 1500 edit baseline, simply by going to their contributions, setting it to 500 per page, and checking for at least 2 or 3 pages. This also encourages the participant to actually do, at the least, a cursory examination of the applicant's edit history.