Adminship edit
In a request for adminship, I am generally a supporter. My belief is that if someone requests adminship we should promote them automatically - unless there is good reason not to, and it is really up to the opposers to come up with reasons why not. I do not believe in coming to requests looking for reasons to oppose; such behaviour signifies a negative and sour outlook on life and the project. However, I will sometimes oppose people for various reasons.
I have several standards I use when voting:
Participation edit
I participate (i.e. vote) based on the following:
- If I have come across the editor on the project, or heard of their name
- If a request is not clearly passing or failing, but on the brink
Supporting edit
I support people based on the following (though bear in mind, this is just the ideal - I will normally support if I can't find sufficient reason to oppose):
- A decent history and background on the project
- A friendly and positive outlook
- A good ability to write articles
- A calm attitude displayed on talk pages, noticeboards etc
- A wide range of experience on the project
Oppose edit
I may oppose people based on the following (I may break rules occasionally for candidates who are clearly failing a request, or have shown genuine remorse for their actions):
- A history of edit warring
- A pattern of abusive behaviour (including incivility, personal attacks, harrassment, disruptive editing etc)
- Obvious immaturity
- A block log (with one or more recent entry that was not overturned)
- A pattern of misreporting - e.g of users to AIV, UAA etc, and inappropriate speedy-deletion tagging
- A pattern of low quality driveby votes on XFDs
- A sour and negative outlook on life and the project
- A pattern of dramamongering (hanging out on admin noticeboards is a bad sign for me)
- A pattern of inappropriate votes at RFA (which suggests the candidate misunderstands adminship)
- Limited experience in general
Bureaucratship edit
I have different standards for requests for bureaucratship. Contrary to popular opinion, bureaucrats are not a higher form of admin, nor are they are better kind of admin, nor are bureaucrats a more difficult role than admins. Admins have dozens of roles to fulfil: they close XFDs, block, delete, protect, undo all of these, grant user rights like rollback, close DRVs, deal with edit warring etc. Bureaucrats have five: close RFAs, promote users, rename users, close BAG requests and grant bot flags. All of these are simpler than adminship as a whole. People confuse bureaucratship with something more God-like, rather than simply understanding that it's a set of extra rights, much like adminship.
The most controversial part of bureaucratship is the closure of RFAs, which definitely goes to show how political our community is. This is the only thing I really look for in a potential bureaucrat - an association with RFA. I look for the following:
- A history of decent participation on RFAs
- An obvious interest in the process through discussion on the talk page, bureaucrat noticeboard etc
- A selection of candidates nominated
- Experience as an admin
- Examples of good judgement in determining consensus
I don't care for clerking at changing usernames or bot requests. It's RFA that is the most important role. I may oppose based on the following:
- A lack of interest at RFA
- A history of poorly thought out votes on candidates
- Limited experience as an admin
- Problems with adminship
Notes edit
Please note I try to, but don't always follow this criteria. Each RfA is unique, and forcing the same standards to totally different situations is pointless in my opinion.
Due to a rather unpleasant sequence of events which involved my own adminship being revoked about a year ago, I shall be limiting my RfA participation to voting only, and will only participate further if anyone queries my vote. This is not badgering despite popular opinion, and I am perfectly happy for people to query me and engage in discussion.