User:Trusilver/RFA

I do not have a structured and specific criteria for RfA candidates. You are not going to see me with absolutes such as "5000 edits" or "6 months" or "70% AfD votes agreeing with consensus". I'm not looking for absolutes, because there is no perfect formula for an admin candidate. What I look for in a potential administrator is someone that embodies the spirit of the five pillars. As they are the groundwork for the project, so are they the foundation upon which I judge potential administrators.


 * [[file:BluePillar.svg|47px|alt=First pillar|]] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * We are working together to a common purpose. An administrator should be focused on this purpose above all else. Bureaucracy is necessary to maintain order and structure, but it should not be a goal in and of itself. WP:ANI, WP:RFC and the like are tools of necessity, and an administrator should make use of them to further the project, but not be so focused on politics to the point that the project's primary goal begins to be pushed into the background. Likewise, we are here in the pursuit of knowledge, not for social networking. It should be without question that an administrator candidate's primary purpose for being here is not socialization.


 * [[file:GreenPillar.svg|47px|alt=Second pillar|]] Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
 * An administrator should approach everything from a position of neutrality. The ideal administrator should be able to accept a consensus they do not agree with, they should be able to work with someone they don't care for, they should be able to write articles dispassionately and promote collaboration with others. A good administrator should be ready and willing to take action against anyone who they find editing in a manner detrimental to the project, be it an IP editor, another administrator, or Jimbo Wales.


 * [[file:YellowPillar.svg|47px|alt=Third pillar|]] Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
 * Just like there are all different types of people in this world, there are also all different types of Wikipedians. Some people write articles. Some people copyedit them. Some people watch over those articles and prevent them from being vandalized. There are dozens of tasks available to you here, and all of them are important. You might do a little bit of all of these things, or you might specialize in one or two of them. I care less about exactly what it is you do, and more that you have an understanding of the big picture and a respect for all areas of the encyclopedia. Just like a broad resume increases your chances at getting a job, so does it increase your chances of promotion.


 * [[file:OrangePillar.svg|47px|alt=Fourth pillar|]] Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
 * I will never support an editor who shows a consistent inability to be civil and work with others. Wikipedia is not therapy. I don't care about your mental problems. Deal with them on your own time. They should not be inflicted on those who are attempting to do something constructive. Your writing skills, your editing skills, your vandal fighting skills... I don't care what you bring to the table. If you cannot contribute those abilities in a civilized manner, then you do not belong here... period.


 * [[file:RedPillar.svg|47px|alt=Fifth pillar|]] Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
 * An administrator should be WP:BOLD. Even if I disagree with him, I have more respect for the administrator with a dissenting opinion than I do for the other ninety-nine that are all in agreement with each other. Nothing impresses me more about a candidate than the demonstration of free-thinking and a refusal to compromise one's own principles. Conversely, nothing disgusts me more than an administrator candidate who obviously will not put themselves in any position of conflict for fear that they will be judged harshly by standing up for what they believe.