David Alexander Russell wrote:
The 'generally known and trusted...' doesn't reflect how RFAs actually
happen. It usually comes down to 'absence of fault' rather than any sort
of positive support of a person. Unless someone has done something
controversial (previously be desysopped, stated unpopular views on
deletion policy or whatever) then, provided they have significant
participation in various namespaces their RFA will probably be unanimous
Yes, this is a consequence of allowing anyone to create a new account
without publically verifying their identity. Since user accounts have
no pre-established reputation, and since very few new users actually
accomplish something notable that is widely lauded across the project,
the most we can actually ask for in terms of trust is "has been active
for N months without having screwed up". Raising the bar much higher
than that would significantly reduce the number of new admins.
Of course, the fact that it's much easier to achieve notoriety than
acclaim means that a single screwup can easily ruin your chances of
being trusted. Once your trust level has dropped below that of a random
new user, you either need to work your way up the hard way, by making
significant positive contributions, or give up and start over with a new
account.
No, it's not fair, nor is it a particularly efficient system of judging
the value of contributors. But it's the only one we've got.
--
Ilmari Karonen