User:Kyle Barbour/Adminship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WORK IN PROGRESS
Hey, everybody else has an RfA/adminship subpage, why shouldn't I?
My main concerns on this issue are as follows:
- That RfA promotes administrators who will perform their task well and with aplomb, civility, consideration, maturity, and thoughtfulness.
- Define "their task": Primarily, using the admin tools in ways that benefit the encyclopedia. Secondarily, handling the respect granted by being an old hand well and encouraging others rather than giving the smackdown (conceded, sometimes needed, but not as often as some would think, in my humble opinion).
- Define "ways that benefit the encyclopedia": Being bold (but not boorish), and discussing in appropriate fora actions that may be controversial. Why may? Becuase we have time, and a considerate discussion is quicker and easier than an RfAr.
- Define "their task": Primarily, using the admin tools in ways that benefit the encyclopedia. Secondarily, handling the respect granted by being an old hand well and encouraging others rather than giving the smackdown (conceded, sometimes needed, but not as often as some would think, in my humble opinion).
- That administrators, bureaucrats, and others in positions of authority on Wikipedia are held accountable for their actions, good and bad. (Recognition and thanks are important, especially to volunteers!)
- That those who use the tools effectively are thanked, held and treated with respect, and
- That for those who use them otherwise there is a way to stop that from continuing (whether through apologies and forgiveness, mediation, probation, or, if necessary, de-sysopping).
The rest of this essay are my thoughts on how we currently handle this situation.
[edit] On the brokenness or otherwise of RfA
On voting: User:Sjakkalle/Admin criterion has summed my opinions quite nicely for me. As he's already spoken my mind so clearly (at least as of the time of writing), I'll pass on this topic.
