On what adminship is and should be, RfA's, and whether I covet the mop...
Intro
editAnyone who has read my user page knows I used to date a Wikipedia admin long before I started editing here as religiously as I do now. So I have a different perspective of them than the average person does. Instead of simply interacting with one on talk pages, I got to know one really well- administrators are simply people who are no better than the average newbie except they have a few more buttons. They have hopes, they have fears, they get pissed off, and yes- they've even been known to make mistakes. Sometimes, they even f___ up royally as this page illustrates. I haven't looked at every case on that page, but basically most of them all boil down to admins who forget that they are no better than ordinary users with a few extra buttons. In short, they betrayed the trust the community put in them.
So when I started posting here as a registered user not too long ago, I dismissed the thought of ever wanting to be an admin. Sure, it would be nice to nuke every vandal into oblivion, but with power comes responsibility. With responsibility comes extra effort. For me, the greatest joy on Wikipedia is building the encyclopedia- creating needed articles, improving existing ones, and making the world's largest encyclopedia the world's best encyclopedia. If becoming admin would mean that I had to give that up, then I would never do it. If I could both be an administrator and do the things I enjoy most on Wikipedia, well then maybe someday...
What the mop is not
editOne of the niches I've found for myself lately is writing editor reviews. I noticed a backlog which is a shame because helping users become better editors is an important thing and I decided someone had to do it. One thing which amazed me(and amused me really) was how some people view the mop. People self-nominating themselves before they're even autoconfirmed, putting their "agenda" on their user page (eg. "By the end of 2010 I want to be an admin, by the end of 2011 I want to be a bureaucrat") and entirely misunderstanding what it is all about. It isn't a trophy or award- it's a sign the community trusts you. Nothing more, nothing less...
What I look for in an RfA candidate
edit- Trustworthiness
- Someone with a substantial edit history so I can see if they are:
- Someone who has a history of contributing to article space.
- Someone who has a history of seeking consensus rather than edit warring and acting unilaterally.
- Have some knowledge of what the tools are. Many of you may disagree with me, but I think it's ridiculous to bombard candidates with 1001 'optional' questions. Yes, it's nice to have a candidate who knows all the rules, but I'd rather have a candidate who I know is trustworthy above all else. A trustworthy candidate who might not know every policy will learn how to be a great admin, while an admin who is not trustworthy, even though they know all the rules will probably end up here.
Would I accept a nomination for RfA?
editIf I met all of the following criteria:
- Bring at least two articles up to FA status.
- Achieving at least 7 goals listed on my user page (I keep five on there- I will put a new goal up when I complete an old one.
- Make 10,000 edits with 7,000 in article space.
- Been registered at least six months.
then I would accept a nomination if and only if I knew it would not be a distraction from encyclopedia building.
Well, that's all for now- now it's time to go back to article space...
Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)