User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings

My various thoughts related to RfAs. Make of them what you will, but know that none of this is set in stone.

(this page is also under construction, as I attempt to translate my furious scribbling into something more resembling intelligent prose. no small feat, consider this is me I'm trying to make sound intelligent...)

Requirements

 * Basics &mdash; Civility is a must; biting newbies is, of course, unacceptable. I don't have a problem with profanity (quite the opposite, as long as it isn't used in conjunction with admin-type actions). Using edit summaries is an easily fixed issue, so just because a candidate hasn't used them prior to the RfA, it isn't necessarily a bullet through the RfA. Showing the ability to admit that they wrong is a plus; we're all human, and humans often make mistakes (except me, of course). I love to see candidates that have a good sense of humor, as I think that lessens the chances for a burn-out, but I'm extremely biased in that regard, being a rather jovial fellow myself. :)


 * Edit Count &mdash; At least 2,000 edits. A largely arbitrary number, 2k allows (ideally) for sufficient evidence of how an editor behaves in a variety of editing situations. This is hardly a number fixed in stone; with as many automated and semi-automated tools as are available nowadays (damn kids), it's possible to achieve 2k edits without putting much thought behind it. One thousand thoroughly considered edits are of far greater value (in my mind) than three thousand typo corrections.


 * Time &mdash; I'm uncomfortable promoting anyone who hasn't been around for at least four months. Four months of solid edits shows (or at least hints at) the level of dedication to the project that an administrator should have. For example, hmwith first submitted an RfA when she had been around for three months. I was neutral, as she was an amazing candidate but it was just too soon. Sure enough, she stuck with the project for a few more months, and her second RfA passed unanimously at (79/0/0) (and, even better, she's maintained that same level of quality after the RfA).


 * Namespace Distribution &mdash; No exact ratio is required. I believe that admins should be active in a wide variety of areas; vandal-fighters and content builders are of equal value to the project. There would be no site without the writers, but the site wouldn't be used by anyone if vandals ran rampant. In an ideal world, the candidate would be a blend of both, but in an ideal world, we wouldn't have vandals, so dwelling on ideals is a pointless endeavor.


 * Activity &mdash; I won't (generally speaking) support a candidate who has shown lackluster participation in the project. I don't think every candidate needs to have made a thousand edits a month for the past year, but if someone puts themselves up on WP:RFA with just 43 edits the month prior to the RfA (and just 77 the month before that), I'm sorry, but that's not active enough in my mind. Exceptions to this would be a candidate who is an active administrator on another WMF project, and is seeking adminship to help out with a specific area (for example, Herbythyme's RfA, though monthly stats aren't directly available on that page).

Vote vs. Discussion
Candidates for adminship are, effectively, asking the community whether they (the community) feel that the candidate is ready for adminship and all it entails. In this vein, RfA is a vote, with people weighing in on whether the candidate is ready or not.

However, a simple "yay/nay" vote provides no feedback for the candidate, and so opposing editors are required to explain their opposition. In this respect, RfAs are a discussion. All arguments (for or against) are open to debate by other editors, to discuss the merits of the argument.

All editors (including administrators and bureaucrats) have room for improvement; even successful RfAs can include constructive feedback. This is all the more important for failed RfAs, as the candidate needs to know where they should concentrate so that they can become a better editor and will (hopefully) have a successful RfA on their next attempt.

Common RfA arguments
Self-Noms

The idea that self-noms are evidence of power-hunger is ridiculous. For starters, an RfA requires the candidate to want to be an admin; otherwise they would turn down the nomination, and there is no RfA. While it would be nice if an objective party made the decision of whether a candidate is ready or not, that's the purpose of the entire RfA process. Sometimes a candidate will eschew adminship until they feel they are ready for the additional responsibilities; to punish them for not having a third-party handy when they feel themselves ready is silly.

Emphasis on encyclopedia-level/project-level activity

Administrators are required to do many chores around Wikipedia that are outside what most average editors are required to do. While the ideal candidate would have experience in a wide range of areas, we don't live in an ideal world. :)

Traditionally, candidates come in three varieties: encyclopedia writer, vandal-buster, or jack-of-all-trades. While someone who churns out featured articles on a weekly basis is naturally a valued member of the project, such writing doesn't give them the experience necessary to deal with vandalism or contentious XfD debates. Likewise, someone who is utterly ruthless when it comes to reverting and reporting vandalism will be lost if asked to assist in a content dispute.

Personally, I feel that we have enough administrators with a wide enough range of specialties that every candidate doesn't need to be wearing every hat under the sun. While, yes, the ideal candidate will always be someone who has both shown a firm grasp of Wikipedia's policies and proven themselves to be an accomplished content producer, the realistic candidate will have shown competence in both areas, though to varying degrees.

Age

coming later