User:Nihonjoe/Admin/Intro



I strongly encourage you to review current candidates for adminship and bureaucratship and voice your opinion in the discussions to the right. It's important to participate as much as possible.

I also encourage you to have realistic standards for adminship. When considering your opinion in a particular case, focus on how you think the candidate would do using the tools an admin uses. That's the most important thing to focus on. Whether they have a lot of contributions in mainspace is important, but not as important as how they might use the tools.

Also focus on how they interact with others. Do they "play nicely in the sandbox", or do they constantly throw figurative sand in others's faces? Do they react well to honest criticism? Admins have to deal with a lot of situations where tempers may be flaring, so how they react in such situations is important.

Does the candidate use automated tools such as Twinkle? If so, do they use them abusively (such as in edit wars)? When giving warnings regarding others' actions, do the warnings match up with what the person did, or was the warning possibly an overreaction? If it was an overreaction, was this a rare occurrence, or does the candidate regularly give inappropriate warnings?

Does the candidate tag articles for speedy deletion and/or participate in deletion discussions? If so, are they accurately tagging articles, or are they regularly mistagging them? Keep in mind that borderline cases (where the article could be viewed either way) should not necessarily count against them, but regular mistagging of articles may show a misunderstanding of the underlying policies and guidelines.

In deletion discussions, does the candidate offer well-reasoned opinions, or do they just offer "me, too!" opinions? Note that there are cases where a "me, too!" opinion is fine, but if that is all the candidate ever offers, it may show they don't understand how deletion discussions are supposed to work.

How about in requests for adminship or bureaucratship discussions? Does the candidate offer a useful opinion, backed by diffs if necessary? Does it sound like they actually took the time to review the candidate rather than just basing their opinion on weak arguments? Have they ever voiced an opinion in support of someone with whom they sometimes (or often) disagree? This last one can be very telling, because someone who is willing to support a candidate with whom they disagree on some things can show they are willing to make decisions which may go against their own personal feelings, and that's a good trait in an admin or bureaucrat.

These are the kinds of things which can determine how well someone will act as an admin or 'crat.

Administrator
I'm an administrator, and I'm willing to help out where I can. If you need administrator assistance, please post a comment on my Talk page and I'll see what I can do. Please note that you may get a quicker response from the Administrators' noticeboard or one of its subpages as I'm somewhat erratic with my login times.

Bureaucrat
I'm also a bureaucrat. If you need bureaucrat assistance, please post a comment on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard in order to receive the quickest assistance as we all watch that noticeboard. Thanks!