User:Xiner/RfA thoughts

My nomination record

 * Requests for adminship/xiner
 * Requests for adminship/VegaDark (52/0/0)
 * Requests for adminship/Xiner (2nd nomination)
 * Requests for adminship/KFP (45/0/0)
 * Requests for adminship/Fuhghettaboutit (73/4/0)
 * Requests for adminship/AQu01rius (53/1/0)


 * Requests for adminship/Soumyasch I got in early, knowing that it was one of the very few that'd fare better than it first looked.

An analogy
A Wikipedia sysop is most similar to the IRCop. It may seem cool to the outsider to have the ability to block a user, but one must jump through hoops and politics to achieve the status, which is not a prize.

Ready for RfA?
You should be able to comfortably answer these questions before submitting yourself for merciless dissection at RfA:
 * What may trigger your emotions in a conflict? How do you deal with it?
 * Why are edit summaries important?
 * Why is a block never a punishment?
 * Can I use two Wikipedia accounts to edit?
 * Can I handle myself comfortable at AfD, CFD, IfD, UCFD, and TFD?
 * Do I worry about vandals, or how to deal with them?
 * Do I know how to properly handle myself in a content dispute? Edit war?
 * How would you appeal an article deletion?
 * What are the RfA voters concerned about at the moment?
 * Have you at least 500, preferably 1000 edits in article space (with significant numbers in both articles and their talk pages), in XfD's, and on user talk pages? It's unfair to ask for anything more than that because these numbers very likely mean that you've been encountering situations where you wished you had sysop tools.

Reasons not to oppose a candidate

 * Not enough contributions to the encyclopedia (if the user has over 1200 edits there)
 * Recent activity has declined (if the user has been active over the last six months and 1200 edits each in article, user talk, and Wikipedia space)
 * Has not demonstrated the need for the mop (It is not inherently a bad thing. The random internet user doesn't have to demonstrate the need for editing privileges before they start changing pages. If a user can help out just few times per month without resorting to an admin, that is not a bad thing. What such a candidate is likely to be missing, however, is the knowledge of the policies behind the tools, and the lack of application of such policies.)

The need for new admins
Read these graphs and the discussions on that page. We need more admins to prevent burnouts, reduce CSD backlogs, and give everyone more time to work on other things. Please help identify good candidates and nominate them!

After the process
Thank every participant, including your distractors, if any. Xiner (talk, email) 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unused prepared answers for my RfA
Spam is a problem, but a bigger one is vandalism, and edit wars are even more harmful. Many inappropriate links are inserted by new users; most are reverted almost immediately. I remove most URLs and all email addresses from the help desk. I have also reinserted links under the one-fansite rule because they added to the article, so I'm no deletionist. However, we must stay vigilant because if spams degrade the quality of our encyclopedia, our editors will depart.

I do want to point out that while spams can be removed at any time, some pages are not well monitored, and vandals have deleted useful passages that are gone forever. I myself regularly chance upon errant edits that are not reversed months after the fact.

WP:IAR is something to keep in mind, because there's hardly a rule without an exception. But it must be used very carefully - there is a reason the community has adopted the policies and guidelines that it has. I don't like WP:SNOW because it is inherently subjective, and even lopsided discussions can swing as unpredictably as the NASDAQ index.

Blocks should not be preemptive.

I would block an established user if the account seems to be compromised; repeated 3RR violations; harassment; impersonating an administrator; legal threats; or heavy vandalism. If I am involved in the dispute, I would ask an independent admin to intervene.

WP:COI strongly advises against it, and as a matter of course, users should be reminded of the relevant policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:N. Special attention needs to paid regarding WP:OR, and they should be encouraged to post on the article's talk page or WP:RFC instead. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle should be employed to resolve the situation before further steps need to be taken. If the article is patently unencyclopedic or non-notable, CSD may be necessary, but prod or AfD are safer avenues that prevent my ignorance on that topic from destroying someone else's work. Articles need to be check against a common set of standards.

I would check when the article was created, what links to it, and who made it sound so promotional. I would read it to determine if it is salvagable and notable. If I've any doubt, Rules for CSD, G11 or not, are so worded that "in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion". Each case should be investigated using Wikipedia's yardsticks tempered by admin experience.