User:OhKayeSierra/RfX criteria

Most of this is inspired by User:Jahiegel/Views_on_Wikipedia/Requests_for_adminship

I've been procrastinating on writing this, mostly because I'm of the belief that Adminship is no big deal. Our process for desysopping sucks, without a doubt. But, time and again, the community has proven that the process, while cumbersome, is effective at desysopping disruptive admins, so my criteria is effectively liberal in who I would support. That being said, writing these guidelines out is an effective way for me to hold myself accountable for how I participate in RfX's.

OK, Sierra. So what is your criteria?

Can I trust you enough to avoid breaking the wiki or become a liability and/or disruptive force if the community were to grant you the toolkit?

This is the primary question I ask myself as I consider candidates, and is the only consideration that truly matters to me more than any other criteria. That being said, I'll waive every other criteria that I set for admin candidates if I'm reasonably convinced that the candidate will still be a net positive with the toolkit.

What I specifically look for to determine if I can trust the user as an admin (in no particular order)

• What does the candidate do on wiki, and how effective are they at it?

• Whether you're an effective mediator, article creator, vandal-fighter, page deleter, or interface editor, I'm looking for experience that'll support your need for the tools. In other words, there should be a demonstrative need for you to use the tools.

• Are there any civility concerns?

• I look at potential civility issues on a case-by-case basis. Everyone is allowed to have a bad day every now and again. But, how someone learns from their mistakes and grows as an editor is what truly matters to me. In other words, don't consistently be a jerk.

• Experience in policy and process will be key to your success as an admin.

• Generally speaking, I intentionally avoid considering users only by edit counts or how many years an editor has been with the project. That being said, I'll typically expect a minimum of a year's time consistently editing in different namespaces when considering how experienced an editor is.

• Have you personally endured the crucible that is article development?

• I'm not necessarily opposed to "specialists" that focus on vandal-fighting, mediating, or patrolling new articles. We certainly need as much help as we can get in that regard. But, first and foremost, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and at minimum, the candidate should demonstrate that in their actions.

• Is the candidate able to effectively communicate and resolve disputes with other editors?
• If there are any concerns that I have to any of the above criteria, am I reasonably convinced that the candidate still has the potential to learn from it and improve?

• If the answer is yes, I'll be inclined to support.

If I oppose...

I pledge to offer constructive feedback and thoroughly and respectfully explain why I opposed. My goal isn't to tell adminship candidates that they suck. I want admin candidates to learn and grow from the feedback that I and the community give them, and if a candidate makes a good faith attempt to improve, I will most likely support them in the future. Evidence of a negative track record with incivility or conduct that goes against WP:ADMINACCT is an automatic oppose from me.

Will you nominate me for adminship?

Possibly. My word probably won't carry as much weight as the lovely folks at WP:RRN might, but if a candidate want me to nominate you and you meet the above criteria for me, I would be honored to nominate them. The only thing that I would ask is that they go through the RfA candidate poll beforehand. In the opinion of this editor, an admin that's willing to seek feedback on themselves and their actions in an effort to improve themselves is invaluable.