User:Kurtis/Views on RfA

Requests for adminship is where a contributor in (ideally) good-standing makes a request for the community to consider granting them adminship. By submitting an RfA, they are opening themselves up for scrutiny and analyzation from other members of the community, all of whom have their own views on what kind of editor would make a valuable sysop. Administrators are invaluable contributors to Wikipedia - they spend a good portion of their time doing thankless maintenance work, clearing out backlogs and assisting people with various different issues. Some administrators are avid vandalfighters, clearing out WP:AIV and other noticeboards like a hot knife through butter; some are WP:XfD junkies, closing various discussions reflecting community consensus; some clear out the speedy deletion category on a regular basis - and so on and so forth. Wikipedia needs these tasks done in order to function properly. Therefore, it is necessary that we promote trusted editors to administrators so we can ensure that these are tended to properly and efficiently. I see it as essential that we as a community actively participate there so that we can determine whether or not promoting a candidate will be a net positive.

RfA should be a civil and productive environment, just as every other area of Wikipedia should be. It should not be discouraging to well meaning contributors, and should not devalue their contributions due to relative details. Quite the contrary, RfA should be a positive, constructive experience so people applying for adminship will know what to improve on prior to their next RfA (assuming they are not already suited for the role).

General criteria for a support from me
Generally speaking, I'm quite lenient with regards what I expect from adminship candidates. My most basic requirement is that I trust the candidate to not misuse or abuse the tools. If a candidate meets that basic requirement, they are more than likely to garner a support from me. Regardless of where their area of activity is, I simply want to be assured that I can trust them with the added toolset.

To be more specific as to what I'm looking for from a potential administrator:
 * The candidate should understand policy well enough so that they can clarify it to somebody confused over something they did in their capacity as an administrator.
 * On that related note, they should have good communication skills so people will understand what they're saying.
 * The candidate should be civil. This doesn't mean that I expect the temperament of a Buddhist monk, but I would hope that an administrative candidate can control their emotions to a reasonable degree.
 * The candidate should have some experience - I define experienced as having at least 2000 edits and 3 months experience prior to applying. Most people have higher standards in that area, but I disagree wholeheartedly with them.

And that's it. I don't expect very much at all. I just need to be convinced that they can be trusted to act responsibly, communicate well, and show a willingness to learn and grow.