 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Editors who have passed RfA should act no differently than they did prior to the RfA. |
Going through the Request for adminship (RfA) can be a difficult process for prospective administrators. However, the very act of the community saying that they trust a user's judgement might change that judgement. When the RfA is closed successfully, this can not only be an affirmation of the positive work the editor has done in the past, but can serve as a confidence boost for the editor. Overall, this confidence boost is likely a good thing for the editor and for the encyclopedia. However, this added confidence might cause editors with a long track record to start acting differently. For instance, they might start to act more boldly in their article contributions. Or they might start to take actions during community discussions that they would not have taken before the RfA or enter new maintenance areas differently than the way an editor without the admin toolset would.
Because being an administrator on Wikipedia is designed to be no big deal, administrators should remember that administrator status is not a trophy. Generally, therefore, they should not act any differently now than they did six months or a year ago. It is true that they may be able to help mediate a dispute effectively, or resolve one, or guide the improvement of an article. But in virtually all of these cases their ability has nothing to do with adminship, but just with their experience, knowledge of the policies, and good sense—i.e. virtues they had long before becoming an administrator and virtues which helped them pass RfA.
One area to be especially aware of the potential for the mushroom effect is in project discussions. Following an RfA, it is possible to feel emboldened and offer an opinion in a discussions which one might not have or in a way one might not have before. While there can be times where this can benefit the project, admins should be careful. They are still essentially the same editor as before. The reasons which restrained them in the past were probably good ones and continuing to show that kind of restraint is in keeping with the trust they've earned as an editor.
The administrator's toolset is large and because interests change over time, administrators are encouraged to be thoughtful before entering new maintenance areas. For instance, if an administrator has a long track record at Articles for Deletion that helped their RfA pass but decides down the line to work in usernames, they should enter this new area carefully. The administrator should perhaps even start as a regular editor and without use of the administrator's toolset at first until they have a good grasp for not only the written policy but the unwritten norms that govern many of our work areas.
Being aware of the mushroom effect and pausing before taking bolder actions or acting in new ways around maintenance and project tasks can help ensure that the administrator builds on, rather than deviates from, the track record that earned them the community's trust.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: Editors who have passed RfA should act no differently than they did prior to the RfA. |
Going through the Request for adminship (RfA) can be a difficult process for prospective administrators. However, the very act of the community saying that they trust a user's judgement might change that judgement. When the RfA is closed successfully, this can not only be an affirmation of the positive work the editor has done in the past, but can serve as a confidence boost for the editor. Overall, this confidence boost is likely a good thing for the editor and for the encyclopedia. However, this added confidence might cause editors with a long track record to start acting differently. For instance, they might start to act more boldly in their article contributions. Or they might start to take actions during community discussions that they would not have taken before the RfA or enter new maintenance areas differently than the way an editor without the admin toolset would.
Because being an administrator on Wikipedia is designed to be no big deal, administrators should remember that administrator status is not a trophy. Generally, therefore, they should not act any differently now than they did six months or a year ago. It is true that they may be able to help mediate a dispute effectively, or resolve one, or guide the improvement of an article. But in virtually all of these cases their ability has nothing to do with adminship, but just with their experience, knowledge of the policies, and good sense—i.e. virtues they had long before becoming an administrator and virtues which helped them pass RfA.
One area to be especially aware of the potential for the mushroom effect is in project discussions. Following an RfA, it is possible to feel emboldened and offer an opinion in a discussions which one might not have or in a way one might not have before. While there can be times where this can benefit the project, admins should be careful. They are still essentially the same editor as before. The reasons which restrained them in the past were probably good ones and continuing to show that kind of restraint is in keeping with the trust they've earned as an editor.
The administrator's toolset is large and because interests change over time, administrators are encouraged to be thoughtful before entering new maintenance areas. For instance, if an administrator has a long track record at Articles for Deletion that helped their RfA pass but decides down the line to work in usernames, they should enter this new area carefully. The administrator should perhaps even start as a regular editor and without use of the administrator's toolset at first until they have a good grasp for not only the written policy but the unwritten norms that govern many of our work areas.
Being aware of the mushroom effect and pausing before taking bolder actions or acting in new ways around maintenance and project tasks can help ensure that the administrator builds on, rather than deviates from, the track record that earned them the community's trust.