User:Friday/admin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My own personal guidelines for what would cause me to support a candidate at WP:RFA (or continue to support an adminship if it came into question):

The primary requirements that make an editor suitable for use of the admin tools are reasonableness and temperament. A suitable admin candidate should also demonstrate that the good of the project is his top priority. I don't have a firm age requirement, but as a general rule I prefer candidates who are of full adult age (say, 25 years old or so.) The further below adult age an editor is, the more evidence I will want to see of unusual maturity and good judgment. I'm probably unlikely to support anyone who's under 20 or so.

To me, things like featured articles are irrelevant. You could be a great editor and a poor admin, or vice versa. Editors who want to revert vandalism would make better use of sysop tools than those who do nothing but write great articles. But, I don't care how much or how little a potential admin would use the tools- I only consider whether I think they'd do harm or good with them. Being able to peacefully work through disputes is essential- disputes will find you whether you want them to or not.

A primary indicator of being an unsuitable candidate is drama-seeking behavior. Someone who tends to escalate disputes instead of diffusing them will make a very poor admin. A good candidate will be a harmonious editor. The ability to handle problem editors while continuing to assume good faith is very important. A willingness to be held accountable and admit when mistakes are made is very important. Someone who's willing to participate in something like this is a great indication of the proper mindset for an admin.