User:Vassyana/admin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

No big deal and Trust.

This is how "no big deal" and "trust" hashes out to me, in relation to RfA. In summary, it's ok to be human if you have a clue and show some interest. Just be cool and willing to learn.

[edit] The Basics

  1. Why not? Why the hell not? It speaks for itself.
  2. Have a clue. Be familiar with Wikipedia policy. That does not mean knowing every acronym, being able to quote guidelines or knowing every in and out. It means showing you have a familiarity with the rules, their spirit and their application. That is, having a reasonable grasp of things.
  3. Show some interest. Be familiar with admin relevent rules. I'm not asking for the world, just a reasonable indication the candidate is familiar with the basics. Candidates are explicitly asked to review pages regarding adminship. Again, I will not look for the nitty gritty, but rather a general understanding of what an admin is, does and does not do.
  4. No editcounting. Edit counts will be pretty much ignored. If one candidate convincingly seems to have a grasp of things at 1000 edits, I will support them. Some people never grasp in 5000 edits what others grasp after their first 500.
  5. We're people. What a candidate does with their time on Wikipedia does not matter, generally speaking. If someone spends nearly all of their time working with images and XfD, but doesn't do much in other Wikipedia space and has very few mainspace edits, that is OK. Everyone has their own interests and there's plenty of tasks to go around.

[edit] Dangers

  1. Incivility. If a candidate shows a repeated pattern of aggression, hostility or just a plain mean streak, I will flatly oppose. I am not looking for shiney happy people. I am just looking for someone who is not a dick. Blunt and how-it-is attitudes are perfectly fine absent other issues. If you cannot control yourself, I cannot trust you with the tools
    • If the candidate has the occasional outburst when things get heated, but always cools off and doesn't escalate a situation further, I will not oppose the candidate. Remember, "we're people" and occasionally a dispute can get hot. How someone handles themselves when they get heated can say a lot about the person.
  2. Failure to learn. A candidate who shows a lack of interest or capacity in responding to feedback and learning the environment is an obvious oppose. Someone who has no interest in adapting to feedback and consensus has no business with the sysop bit.
    • Candidates who show a strong ability and willingness to learn and adapt will generally receive more trust than those who have a somewhat better understanding of Wikipedia but seem inflexible or unresponsive. However, let me be clear that conformity and regurgitation are no replacement for learning.
  3. Doubt. I will not ask that candidates make me trust them to an absurd level. I must simply have no significant reason to believe that the tools will be abused or misused. If I doubt a candidate for any reason, I will be clear in my opposition. I will gladly clarify any opposition to explain that doubt at anyone's request or response.

[edit] Things to note

  1. Against the grain. I will support even a snowballed fail, if I think the candidate should receive the admin bit.
  2. To the wind. I will oppose a snowballed pass, if I there is something that makes me worry about the editor getting the bit.
  3. Open minded. I can be swayed from my opinion by reasonable arguments and evidence. I will ask questions. The answers do matter, in relation to my views.