 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
It is my strong belief that the standards to which we hold candidates running for adminship and bureaucratship should be reversed. I feel that the current system is counterintuitive and downright ridiculous. Why do I feel this way? One need only look at the tools which come along with each position.
- Administrators
Administrators are entrusted with the tools to block users, delete pages, protect pages, grant rollback, and more. While Wikipedia can't be broken, it is still possible to cause quite a bit of havoc with these tools.
- Bureaucrats
Bureaucrats have all the tools which administrators possess, plus a few extra. They have the ability to grant adminship, rename accounts, and grant or revoke bot status. Rather mundane, in my opinion.
Why, then, if we are willing to trust a user with the far more "dangerous" tools of an administrator are we so much more stingy when it comes to granting the hum-drum tools of the bureaucrat? For this reason, I don't hold RFB candidates to any higher a standard (at least not much higher) than I do RFA candidates. If I trust a user with the ability to block users and delete articles, you can bet I trust them to close RFAs and flag bot accounts.