Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 08:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
I've recently taken an interest in RfA for three reasons:
- The project needs more administrators;
- Specifically, the project needs more active administrators;
- It's important for the wider community to have an input in choosing in whom they're placing trust to help manage/maintain the place.
Becoming an admin is a big deal, contrary to Jimbo's quote cited at WP:ADMIN. The recall process is broken (i.e. unenforceable) and admins are given the 'bit' indefinitely. It's important that the right candidates are entrusted, by the community, with the tools required to perform maintenance work. What I think Jimbo really was getting at, and has been misunderstood about, is that becoming an admin should have nothing to do with privilege, station, or importance but rather be about helping to maintain the project by labouring in areas which might require more discretion than usual.
So, here are the expectations I have of RfA candidates in order to offer a !vote of support. If you want to discuss any of these views with me feel free to drop a message on the talk page.
The Basics edit
- Proven record of adhering to four key content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP.
- Proven record of engaging productively/constructively with other editors (i.e. adhering to WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and working in respect of consensus). Offering third opinions is a bonus as is helping to mediate in disputes and demonstrating the maturity to know when to call it a day. Every editor winds up in content disputes at some point: this isn't so important as how the candidate resolved them and what was learned during the process/since.
- Any blocks should have been sat out; the user should not have violated the sockpuppetry policy. If the candidate was blocked in the past, they should demonstrate how they learned from any blocks they received, and any block-related disputes should be resolved before the RfA is presented. I disagree that being blocked is, in itself, a case for oppose-ing an RfA: some blocks are not justified nor are they appropriate and the level of drama witnessed in the "history of blocks on Wikipedia" is evidence of this.
- Age is irrelevant, but maturity is not.
Project involvement edit
- Candidate should have been actively involved in Wikipedia for over one year. I simply can't place my trust in someone who is requesting indefinite access to admin tools who hasn't been around long enough to reassure me of their intent with those tools or their likelihood of sticking around (we need active admins, not just more admins).
- Core content contributions (~500 significant, i.e. none-gnomish, non-automated edits): we are all here to build an encyclopaedia, after all, so if there's no interest in doing so then I fail to see why the bit should be given. Working with content will give candidates the opportunity to get a 'feel' for what goes on, and shows a commitment to the values of the project.
- Article creation and GA/FA/DYK contributions are a bonus but not essential.
- Demonstration of activity in "admin-related" areas is important: this might include participation at AfD, clerking somewhere, providing third opinions, mediating disputes, leading — or assisting with leading — a WikiProject, and that sort of thing. Basically anything which suggests responsibility, a desire to interact with the community (since "those seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information" per WP:ADMIN), and supporting the maintenance areas of the project since this is what is expected of admins.
Views/outlook edit
- Any conflicts of interest should be declared. I would not oppose on the basis of any of these: we are all human, and we all have vested interests. These interests should, however, be transparent to the community and should not have interfered with editor interaction. I'd also be reassured if the candidate were to pledge to recuse him/herself from admin-related involvement in any areas where a potential conflict of interest exists.
- I will oppose any candidate who cannot demonstrate a willingness to consult with other admins, and the community, when performing potentially controversial admin-related actions (such as issuing particularly controversial blocks or closing particularly controversial AfDs, and so on and so forth).