Administrator tools are intended to make maintenance of the encyclopedia run more smoothly. It can't be characterized as "thankless" because there are plenty examples of admins being thanked, but it's certainly not glorious.
In most cases I will support an RfA, assuming good faith that the editor is interested in helping out and willing to learn, or to put it in the words of another editor:
“ | I see no reason to believe that the candidate would misuse the tools, and I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | ” |
Arguments of other editors may sway my vote if they are compelling, so if my faith is called into question I consider the following:
Often the only evidence of good judgment is a lack of bad judgment. Bad judgment may include:
Have you seen me making arguments inconsistent with these criteria in an RfA? Post the diff on the talk (even anonymously if you'd prefer, but I don't mind if candidates do so) and I'll take a look at it. If I agree, I will either change my position in the RfA because it's inconsistent (but only if it's still open), or change these standards to reflect my new way of thinking.
Administrator tools are intended to make maintenance of the encyclopedia run more smoothly. It can't be characterized as "thankless" because there are plenty examples of admins being thanked, but it's certainly not glorious.
In most cases I will support an RfA, assuming good faith that the editor is interested in helping out and willing to learn, or to put it in the words of another editor:
“ | I see no reason to believe that the candidate would misuse the tools, and I don't think this editor would delete the main page or block Jimbo. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | ” |
Arguments of other editors may sway my vote if they are compelling, so if my faith is called into question I consider the following:
Often the only evidence of good judgment is a lack of bad judgment. Bad judgment may include:
Have you seen me making arguments inconsistent with these criteria in an RfA? Post the diff on the talk (even anonymously if you'd prefer, but I don't mind if candidates do so) and I'll take a look at it. If I agree, I will either change my position in the RfA because it's inconsistent (but only if it's still open), or change these standards to reflect my new way of thinking.