User:Physicq210/RfA and Adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are my personal views and opinions of the realm of administrators and the application process for a Wikipedia administrator (commonly known as an RfA).

Contents

The Request for Adminship (RfA)

First things first, if you are running for adminship, congratulations! You are taking a leap of faith in gauging your preparation and/or willingness to take on new tools for the benefit of Wikipedia. With great power comes great responsibility, and often, the RfA is the gauge to see your past work, present attitude, and future tendencies.

However, as with anything, this is a serious business that is not to be taken likely. If you are running for adminship, please remember that:

  • Adminship is no big deal. I cannot stress this enough. I've seen some candidates fret themselves over an RfA, and leave Wikipedia when their RfA's failed. If you fail, note the criticism and advice given by the editors reviewing you, follow them, and try again in a few months.
  • Adminship is not a trophy. Adminship is not a testament to your achievements (if any). It is simply an addition of several select tools to assist you as an editor on Wikipedia. Period.
  • Adminship is not a status symbol. As stated in my previous point, it is merely an acquisition of additional functions. It is not designed, intended, or allowed for use as a method to increase your leverage in a dispute (through proper or improper means).

For a comprehensive list of what adminship is not, please click here.

Any indication that any of the above points have been or will be violated will result in my immediate and unwavering opposition to your RfA. Do note that as of this writing, no RfA that I have opposed for whatever reason has ever passed.

My RfA Criteria

I decide adminship candidacies on a case by case basis, as RfA's, like the editors they represent, are unique in many aspects, and I simply refuse to use a one-size-fits-all mentality regarding this aspect of Wikipedia.

If you came here to see what criteria I have to attain my support, then you will surely be disappointed, as I hold no concrete criteria for support. However, I have a condition that leads me to definitely oppose a candidate.

  • Canvassing for votes by the candidate and/or the nominator, if any, on RfA. Canvassing (also called vote-spamming, campaigning, or other similar labels) will meet my immediate and unwavering opposition. Not only does it violate a Wikipedia guideline, it is extremely reprehensible and contemptible to solicit for votes to gain even an illusion for support of such a nomination.

Otherwise, I tend to vote on the basis of whether there is a valid, legitimate, and/or glaring reason or reasons to oppose a candidate's RfA. If I do oppose, I usually give a detailed reason for opposition. If I support, that means that I have judged said candidate to be, in my opinion, fit for adminship.

On Moral Supports

I never give moral support opinions or similar on any RfA. While I support the intention of such !votes, I believe that giving such opinions only serve to belittle the candidate whose request is faltering badly, in short turning a support vote into a congenial form of mockery. If I have to oppose, I will state it directly, with some advice on future improvement and inviting the candidate to attempt adminship again on a later date.

My RfA voting

My voting record is pretty balanced, with 24 support, 24 oppose, and 4 neutral as of 23:25, Monday April 9, 2007 (UTC).

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/y/User%7EPhysicq210_RfA_and_Adminship_923a.html"