Lately, I've had a few people ask me when I'm planning to "put in my RfA" and when I reply that I have no such plans, I'm asked "why not?" This page defines the criteria under which I'll accept a Request for Adminship nomination and the standards that I hold myself to in accepting. You are welcome to debate the points with me if you'd like, and may do so on this page. It's not needed to start the talkpage. I just ask you don't delete any information. :)
[edit] Before Adminship
Why have I not yet applied for adminship?
- I have yet to find a situation where I actually need it. By use of the social extension of IRC, I have at my fingertips the ability to contact an admin and request a block or delete a page if need be. As well, I know admins with the +Oversight permission, so if I discover private information being posted (Say, an admin's phone number in an edit summary) I can quickly contact said admins and have the revisions deleted.
- While I feel experienced, I'm not sure that I've actually discovered all there is to the intricasies of Wikipedia yet. For example: Until recently, I assumed that the WP: prefix was simply a shorthand method of typing Wikipedia: to identify a namespace. I did not realize that WP: prefixed names are in the article namespace and simply marked as "unprintworthy" so people don't confuse them with the encyclopedia articles, which live right next door (metaphorically speaking).
- I've asked various admins and bureaucrats for critiques on my editing style, and still do not yet find that I'm quite ready yet to take the mop. While I have my share of vandalism reversions, there are plenty of other tasks besides "varmint huntin'" that require said tools. If I'm going to have these tools, I'd rather know my limitations, weaknesses and areas of strength.
[edit] Criteria for nomination acceptance
- I'd like to be comfortable with Mediation Cabal and get my hands dug into some more cases first. I think so far my experience has been very...extreme. I've had a handfull of very easy cases and one case (as of this writing) which is annoyingly difficult. I firmly beleive that mediation skills are a must.
- I have no interest in self-nominating. If you think I should be an administrator, please tell me first, "Kylu, I want to nominate you" and we'll talk. If you ask me, "Want me to nom you?" I'll say no.
- this issue was sidestepped with "Kylu, we're nominating you." ~Kylu (u|t) 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nevermind! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd like to hit 5000 total edits. I don't have editcountitis, I promise, but I want there to not be any oppose votes based simply on "lack of experience." There should be no reason for it to even be mentioned.
- In the same vein, I'd also prefer to wait until six months as a user have passed (2 October 2006) before accepting a nomination. It's not really that long, but should satisfy most people I think.
- I'd like to hit at least 500 edits in the Wikipedia namespace and 500 in Talk. These two namespaces (Wikipedia activity and article talk) are currently what I see as my "weak areas" on here.
- Mastery of three principles I have difficulty with:
- Being bold when updating pages and
- Not stuffing beans up my nose and
- When to ignore all rules and when not to
- Some sort of indication that indicates to me that I've earned some level of trust with the Wikipedia community. This is vague and quite honestly I'm not sure what would qualify. Please note I'm not asking you to do something here, it's just that if I'm not sure that I'm trusted to be an admin, then why run?
It seems to me that you are under the impression that you need to be a perfect Wikipedian and know every bit of Wikipedia policy in order to become an admin. I disagree with that view, as you could always do research or ask for advice if you are in a situation that you are unsure of. In addition, I think that the fact that you are willing to admit your shortcomings shows that you can find ways around them, which would make you an above-average admin candidate (although I doubt your shortcomings are as severe as you seem to think). -- Where 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Where. You are, in my view, already an above-average admin candidate, and not just because "adminship standards are falling", as is sometimes claimed. If you want more experience, that sounds fine - and extremely humble of you, too - but I shouldn't wait too long before you say, "gimme that mop". You would most probably be more productive with the extra tools. - Tangotango 08:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
First, I don't think waiting till your candidacy is so perfect that you get NO opposes is important enough to be worth waiting for, and I agree with both Where and Tangotango, you are a great candidate already, but want to point out that there's really no rush. Candidates that have to be cajoled into running, that aren't eager for the supposed power and glory of the position, that aren't in it for egoboo seem like the very best sort. Do the thing when you're ready and not before. But you've already got a lot of trust, trust me. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I seem to recall speaking with someone about RfA and congratulating them for being demoted. I'll have to paraphrase the conversation, because quite honestly I don't recall all the back-and-forth:
- "Congrats on getting demoted to admin!"
- "Isn't admin a promotion?"
- "Well, you're doing more work for the same amount of pay. Does that really sound like a promotion to you?"
- Now, honestly, I like the idea of being trusted, and like the idea of helping WP out, but I'm not sure if I'm ready, myself, and I'd rather make sure that I get it right the first time around. If I have someone look through my contribution history and say "Oh, hey, you called that vandal a dork" then I might end up not being totally assured I'm doing the right thing in asking for the position. It is, first and foremost, an increase in responsibility and capability without an increase in respect (except accidental).
- Lastly, I'm broken. I'm deficient. I just have to know how everything works (which I understand is "dangerous" on wikipedia) and I don't feel adequate if I can't find some way to answer a question. Language (ask mindspillage!), Sciences, WikiPolicy, Math, anything... I tend to need to be able to provide an answer. So far, I think I'm familiar with all the major policies and such, but there are always precedents and wikiproject rules and such hiding in nooks and crannies all over. Ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- You don't need to have all of policy memorized though. You can always refer to it when you need to see it. And even if there are some opposes, as long as you recognize the mistakes you made and resolvle to fix them, they should not matter to you if they do not affect the outcome of the RFA. -- Where 00:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so yakking with you guys on irc... let me get this straight:
- Two possibilities:
- I turn into an admin, can keep doing what I'm already doing, but have the option of deleting pages that are db'd, blocking vandals, etc.... but am not actually required to watch AN/I and get involved in wikipolitics and such. Nobody bothers me about +sysop anymore.
- I don't turn into admin, keep doing what I'm doing, and can edit for three months before it's appropriate for people to RfA me again.
- ...y'know, I'm not sticking the gigantic blinking "I AM TEH ADMINZORZ" tags and junk on my page. Other than the categories and removal of the "not an admin" stuff on my talkpage, I have no intention of changing the page. Acceptable? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't heard any more about this, so assume you're not implementing it immediately. Good, I can get back to procrastinating. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] After a successful RfA
What am I planning to do if something does happen and I manage to be appointed administrator by the community?
[edit] Personal page actions
- I have no interest in putting up the "Wikipedia Admin" userbox. I'm not totally sure that it's a welcoming sign, especially if someone has concerns they're wanting to air. What if I made some horrible factual mistake and they wanted to tell me so? Would it be better for those involved if I knew, or if the other party said, "Oh, wait, Kylu's an admin. Maybe I'll just correct it and not bother her.". Not everyone on Wikipedia realizes that adminship is No Big Deal.
- I think I'll probably include the category Category:Wikipedia administrators however, since I would like people to know that I'm available if needed. (Please note: I'm available now, already! If you have a question, even if you think it requires admin assistance but you're not sure, please ask on my talk page okay?)
- I plan to join my friend Lar in Category:Administrators open to recall. I figure, if RfA can be given in a discussion, it can be taken away in a similar discussion.
- I already plan to work in closing AfDs and related deletes. I realize there are plenty of admins already doing this, but a few more can't hurt.
- I do vandalism reversion right now. Honestly, I'll be quite happy to have a faster Rollback button than the one I have currently. While Lupin is a heck of a scripter, there's only so much he can do to make Popups faster. My aging DSL line doesn't get faster with age. :)
- Users always seem to need help reverting pagemoves. Move, move, edit, and the next thing you know, you need an admin to correct the problem. No problem. I know enough to read the talkpage first, though. :)
- Assistance in resolving disputes: Yes, I realize that admins are "just another editor" but some people tend to beleive that because you've got that +sysop flag, that your word is worth more than the next guy's. Others know that it's true by policy, but don't think so when it comes to actual practice. If, in these cases, they insist that the word of an admin is needed to resolve an issue, I'm not afraid to say "Sure, I'm an admin, but I think I'd like to get some editor opinions on this first, then we can decide from there."
- I'd actually like to help the people over in the MediaWiki: namespace. Very interesting stuff. Very easy to screw up. I plan on not touching a damn thing there without talking to Intelligent People first. I have no desire to be known as "Kylu, you know, the one that broke the toolbar and we had to revert edits for hours afterwards..."
[edit] After an unsuccessful RfA
- No "You don't trust me, so I'm leaving"s.
- No ignoring constructive criticism raised during the RfA.
- No refusing to try again after I refine things and accumulate more experience. (added by Lar)
Feel free to add things. :)
|
