User:Operator873/RfA standards

The way I decide to vote for an editor being considered for adminship is not very complicated. I believe my support or opposition to a candidate should be logical and metric driven. There is no particular number of edits, years of experience, or focus I look for as every person is different. That being said, there will always be a moral compass. While I can't describe the compass directly, I can describe what pulls the needle towards Oppose or Support.

Personality
It is important the nominee be someone who can talk to people. That being said, I don't think a good admin will be someone that is a "Yes Person" or someone who does not have their own moral compass of some sort. While they should be diplomatic, they should be able to draw a line in the sand where the WP guidelines say they should be. Some very skilled and knowledgeable Wikipedians I know use the phrase, "Don't be a jerk." This is not something I believe is accurate. For sockpuppets, habitual offenders, and editors with malicious intent, the only way to interact with them is by surgically accurate action and a firm hold on the good of the community. Sometimes, admins MUST behave in a manner that would make the malicious editor want to call them "a jerk." On the other end of that spectrum, the nominee should have a proven record of going beyond the regular expectations of an editor to help a fellow editor in need. This would be demonstrated by reaching out to new editors, offering to help when they notice someone struggling or making test edits, or volunteering their personal time at #wikipedia-en-help or similar active response forum. It make take time and some effort on my part, but I look for instances where the nominee has voluntarily taken a position of mediator (formal or not) and worked with two or more other editors who are disagreeing. Some have forgotten that the community here at Wikipedia is made up of people and not the articles. Therefore, a good admin, in my opinion, is someone who is just as skilled with people (good and bad) as they are with editing or fighting vandals.

Ability
As an administrator, the community at large expects and assumes you have the skills and abilities of a god. I do not mean that in jest either. You are simultaneously expected to know every last bit of anything about everything within the entire WMF. Clearly, this is not realistic. So what do I want in a potential admin? I'd like to see the nominee has around three areas they are extremely good at. Vandal patrol, AfC, Copyediting, reference rescuing, et cetera ad nauseam. What makes a nominee stand out particularly is being able to show other editors they are, indeed, human. I like to see an example where they've been stumped by a question and how they react when the only answer they have to give is, "I don't know." I am a big believer of the adage you cannot meet and know the real person until you've watched them recover from failure. While not knowing the answer to a question here at Wikipedia is definitely not failure, to be sure. Often times not knowing is the current state of being for most editors. But an admin should, when placed in this position, know where to find the answer. And be honest with the editor who's asked them. A good admin is willing to be honest and not mind showing another editor they are human too.

I believe knowledge is easily obtained but wisdom only comes from experience. As I've said, number of edits, years of activity, or AFD statistics do not make or break a nominee in my opinion. At the end of the day, what matters is does the nominee have the wisdom to take the appropriate action when WP's guidelines and the editor's intent are considered? And the wisdom I seek in a nominee is naturally determined by the areas of focus they've had as an editor. I wouldn't expect someone who has produced several Good Articles to be a wizard bot operator too. Similarly, I wouldn't expect someone who spend a significant portion of their time combating vandalism or investigating sockpuppets to have an exhaustive knowledge of stub tags. But I would like to see evidence they know where to find that info if they needed it or were asked about it.

Ethics
When I served in the military, one of the most difficult transitions was from the airman corp to the non-commissioned officer corp. Those friends I had gone out drinking and partying with the week before were now subordinates and I was their supervisor. It is difficult to reconcile a new position of responsibility and authority with friendships of the past. While there is no crystal ball to see into the future, I believe a nominee's behavior will signal and provide hints how they will react to their peers and those editors they are close with. Falling in line with that is the question, "Does the nominee or their behavior suggest a bias towards any one group of editors compared to another." As a Peacemaker & Protector (which I believe every admin truly is) a documented history of fair, unbiased, and equal treatment of others is critical. That is not to say the nominee is a pushover. Everyone the nominee comes in contact with should be given the chance to shine or the chance to demonstrate they are not a someone who will contribute in any constructive way. Once someone has demonstrated malicious intent, I'd like to see the nominee take every step possible to protect the project with any tool that they have at their disposal. At the same time, people change. People grow. WikipediaEditor1 may have spent several years vandalizing Wikipedia and harassing other users. They may have even been actively evading blocks and generally griefing the entire community. WikipediaEditor1 may have to earn the trust and confidence back from the entire community, but once in a blue moon, that nominee will be a troublesome editor's bridge to being the next editor to produce the coveted "Good Article." It only takes a moment of understanding and faith in that person to bring them back... or, if they prove they haven't changed, they can stay on the global list until that day comes.

Nominations
If you are someone I believe is a outstanding example of what I described above, I will speak to you privately. In that conversation, I would hope you were honest with me about whether or not you'd want to endure the RfA process. I'd be interested to hear what you'd focus on and why. If, after the conversation, I felt you would be a great admin and would pass the process, I'd happily nominate. I would prefer finding another editor that feels the same as I do about your ability and participate as a co-nominator. I would want that because people are, after all, fallible. It would be in the best interest of the community for more than just me to stand to nominate you. I'd want the community to speak for you and elevate you to nominee.

TLDR

 * Be a good human being who is willing to help anyone
 * Have a skillset and a demonstrated ability to use it with wisdom
 * Be fair, just, and understanding; but draw a hard line to protect the community

Supported

 * 1) TheSandDoctor's RfA