User:Ifnord/RFA

Things I care about, in no particular order:


 * 1) Regular editing over a consistent period of at least one year previous. At least 10K edits, just to show some work.
 * 2) Civility and calmness. Being an administrator will make you a target for some. Can you keep it cool under fire?
 * 3) Demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedia policy.
 * 4) Some experience, and an overall good record in admin-y areas (XFD, CSD, PROD, AIV, UAA, RFPP, SPI, AN, ANI, AN3 etc). This is why you want to be an admin, right?
 * 5) Strength of your nominator(s). There's people I trust, when I see their names on a nomination my mind defaults to support.

I still believe that being an admin is no big deal, in the traditional sense here. You get no "perks", just more tools that let you work more on the project. Tools that could, in the wrong hands, cause havoc. I tend to default to voting support if my basic criteria is met - but, I do keep a running glance at the oppose votes. I will change my vote if someone brings up something truly objectionable.

Things I don't care about, in no particular order:


 * 1) Number of edits, above the 10K. RFA isn't about who has the better set of numbers, it's about giving you access to extra buttons and whether you can be trusted with those buttons.
 * 2) Content creation. Not everyone is a writer or researcher. Good grammar isn't important for work on sock-puppetry, for example; bless those who do those obscure admin-y tasks.
 * 3) That one mistake you made a few years ago. We all make mistakes, and we all make edits that go against policy every now and then. Blocked for 3RR when you first started? I don't mind, if you didn't do it again. Blocked for vicious attacks on another editor? I'll have a hard time supporting you.

(This template "lifted" from User:Iffy)