User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My participation at WP:RfA
This RfA standard in a coconut shell:

If a user is unlikely to abuse (by seeking volitionally to act against or irrespective of encyclopedic principles in view of his own concerns or by going wholly rogue or otherwise willfully disrupting the project) or misuse (by acting in an area of which he is ignorant, such that he avolitionally disrupts the project; or by failing well to discern—either in view of an inability civilly to converse with other editors or an inability pensively to distill discussion—where a consensus lies or failing properly to appreciate the nature of adminship, such that he acts unilaterally against that consensus) the admin tools, such that it is likelier than not that his being an admin will benefit (rather than harm) the project, he should be approved for adminship, irrespective of the frequency with which he intends to use the admin tools
Main article: User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia#Views on adminship and requests therefor

The categorial rule by which I evaluate a candidate for adminship is whether his being an admin will prove, most probably, propitious or deleterious for the project toward—adminship, after all, is no big deal— the disposition of which question I pose several queries (even as I don't pose each question individually and rather draw broad conclusions, I codify and enumerate them here in order that others might understand with celerity why I act as I do vis-à-vis RfA):

  • Is the candidate altogether unlikely to abuse the admin tools and likely, to the extent that he uses them, to employ the tools in furtherance of encyclopedic principles?
  • Is the user sufficiently deliberative, cordial, responsible, and intelligent as to be able properly and civilly to appreciate from the expressed views of the community where a consensus lies?
    • Is the user sufficiently conversant with practice and policy as to be able, having interpreted a community discussion and apprehended whatever decision it is to which the community has given its imprimatur, to effect the decision for which the community has given its support?
      • Where the user is not sufficiently conversant with practice and policy, is he sufficiently disposed toward multilateral discussion as to eschew participation in areas with which he is unfamiliar (and, in a Rumsfeldian sense, sufficiently self-aware as to know whereof he does not know)?

Where I am able to resolve each question in the affirmative, I support invariably (if some indecorous or irrational behavior should be adduced, the resolution of the first or second question is likely to be in the negative). Where I am not able to answer one or more questions definitively, except in such situations as my inability to draw inferences apropos of a user's judgment stem from his/her being insufficiently involved with the project, when I generally oppose, I vote neutral, as I do when I reply to one or more questions in the affirmative and one or more in the negative. Where I resolve each question in the negative, I oppose (I rarely encounter prospective admins in whom I can repose no confidence, and so I rarely oppose).

It should be observed, finally, that, except in situations where there is some chance of a user's volitionally abusing the tools (going rogue), the fact of a user's appearing to have little need for or intent to use the admin tools is wholly unimportant.

[edit] See also