User talk:EWS23/RFA

I figured I'd put a few comments here about what I feel will probably be some of the more frequently asked questions about this (brief) criteria page, since I want to keep the page short and sweet.
 * Some users feel that #1 (Can the user be trusted to not abuse the administrator tools?) is the only question we should ask in any RfA.
 * I feel #2 (Has the user shown adequate knowledge of policy?) is necessary because well-meaning users without thorough knowledge of policy could potentially make large mistakes that go against the grain of common practice. As I note on the page, this does not necessarily equate to # of Wikipedia space edits, as has been common practice recently. (e.g.- Oppose- Small # of project space edits indicates lack of policy knowledge, or the inverse of that concerning large # of WP edits.) Instead, I will look for diffs that show good understanding, and if I'm really interested in a candidate and really feel like putting in my comments, I may ask an optional question or two.
 * Finally, I feel #3 (Is the user civil?) is necessary because, whether we like it or not, admins are role models for the community. Does this mean admins should be perfect? No. I'm generally not going to oppose a user on these grounds as the result of one diff (unless it's absolutely scathing). However, if there are 2, 3, 4, etc. diffs that show incivility as a recurring problem, this is certainly a concern.
 * Some people don't buy the "admins should be role models" bit. However, there are other points that can be made: admins are often representatives of Wikipedia because they are the ones that new users are most likely to run into, and because the general public views admins as some sort of official sanctioned body of Wikipedia. New users are most likely to run into admins because they're typically the most active users on Wikipedia, and because they're the ones who will warn, block, and delete the pages/images of clueless newcomers. (No, I'm not talking about bad faith actions- I'm just saying that occasionally admins have to go to new users and say, "Hey...you can't do that..we're an encyclopedia!) If we want to attract new users, this must be done politely and civilly, and generally while assuming good faith. As for the part that "the general public views admins as some sort of official sanctioned body of Wikipedia," of course we know that isn't true, but most outsiders do not. I've seen countless newspaper stories where administrators are very overstressed, and even some where they use the word "administrator" where we would simply use the word "editor" or "user." For this reason, admins must generally be on good behavior- as much as we may not like it, some of what Wikipedia must do is attract good public relations, and a widely publicized story about an admin cursing out a clueless newcomer or an editor on a controversial talk page is not the kind of thing we want to deal with on WP:AN/I, much less the New York Times.

If you have any further questions about these criteria, feel free to post a question or comment here, and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)