User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA

Administrator tools are intended to make maintenance of the encyclopedia run more smoothly. It can't be characterized as "thankless" because there are plenty examples of admins being thanked, but it's certainly not glorious.

In most cases I will support an RfA, assuming good faith that the editor is interested in helping out and willing to learn, or to put it in the words of another editor: I see no reason to believe that the candidate would misuse the tools, and I don't think this editor would delete the main page or. -- Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguments of other editors may sway my vote if they are compelling, so if my faith is called into question I consider the following:

Favorable

 * Wikignome tendencies: gnomes have the temperament to handle unglamorous administrative tasks.
 * Understanding of consensus, including a fair witness-type mindset. People who can see the other side of an argument even when they're in the midst of it will do a good job evaluating discussions when they're uninvolved, too.

Unfavorable
Often the only evidence of good judgment is a lack of bad judgment. Bad judgment may include:
 * Evidence of incivility: many diffs provided by people with an axe to grind are provided out of context, and I'm mindful of that, but if there's a pattern, even an old one, it makes me cautious.  I share Father Goose's view on the importance of civil behavior.
 * Immaturity: Immature behavior can arise at any age, particularly when given the cloak of anonymity.

Neutral

 * Age: I can't imagine why it would ever come up at an RfA or anywhere else on the site.
 * Prior RfA: Useful to review, but if being unsuccessful was held against us, I never would have gotten my driver's license.
 * Experience, as defined by edit counts or age of the editor's account. A smaller number of edits can make it tougher to establish that a candidate has the good sense not to delete the Main Page or block Jimbo, however.
 * Article writing, which is really "editing," isn't something I consider independent of other criteria. I appreciate the position that being involved in article creation is needed to keep very deletionist editors from getting the tools, but I believe that evidence of both good and bad judgment can be better demonstrated through talk pages of all stripes.  We're all here to create an encyclopedia, but we need admins that are only interested in the really deep meta-areas running smoothly, as well.

Call me on it
Have you seen me making arguments inconsistent with these criteria in an RfA? Post the diff on the talk (even anonymously if you'd prefer, but I don't mind if candidates do so) and I'll take a look at it. If I agree, I will either change my position in the RfA because it's inconsistent (but only if it's still open), or change these standards to reflect my new way of thinking.