User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria

Among participants at Requests for adminship it has recently become fashionable to publish individual RfA voting criteria. As I fear mine is far from mainstream, I decided to follow suit.

Criterion 1 of 1: The candidate has clue, broadly construed.

Notes on my criterion

1. Clue has nothing to do with edit count. The candidate's possession of clue can – as far as I am concerned – be determined from 100 edits, for instance in a case where an editor has averaged 2 substantial edits per working day over the last 3 months, including different subject areas in main space, talk space, policy discussions, and fora.
2. I might still oppose candidates with low edit counts, for transcluding a snowball RfA shows lack of clue.
3. I might oppose a candidate due to too many edits. This could happen if an editor usually requires 6 edits to place a single template, or 40 edits to publish a half-page stub. I will, however, in all likelihood present a more orthodox oppose rationale in such case.
4. My understanding of clue extends to the hypothesis that a clueful user could properly close their very first AfD discussion without ever having participated there before. (Replace "closing AfD" with "blocking a spam account", "filling a DYK queue", or any other specific admin task). A clueful user will first read the procedures before acting, and then most likely get it right the first time.

   Let me explain that further. Articles for deletion is possibly the least likely place to be for an editor who is very good at evaluating consensus – the ability is wasted there, unless the admin bit is set. So before becoming admin, the user possibly hangs out at Third opinion or organises RfCs.

5. I will be very hesitant to support candidates who have been blocked, even if a year or longer ago. I would expect a proper explanation under RfA standard question 3 in this case, and I might nevertheless oppose.

   This does not apply to blocks that have been issued without warning, for instance for edit warring. It is the ignoring of block warnings and the repetition of mistakes that is an indication of lack of clue to me.

6. Consistently uncivil editors, and those who I consider to be vandals, trolls, wikilawyers, or POV pushers should know that they exclude themselves from obtaining the mop, usually forever. To assume otherwise I consider lack of clue.
7. Errare humanum est, also for administrator candidates. This specifically includes bad CSD taggings, placing questionable userboxes, walking into a trap laid out in form of an optional question at RfA, and even the very occasional verbal outburst. However, the saying has a second part which is often forgotten: ..., sed perseverare diabolicum. Making the same mistakes over and over again, or defending them against overwhelming consensus, yes, that's lack of clue for me.

Notes on my voting pattern

I only infrequently !vote at RfA (see here for an overview) but this does not mean I have no opinion. I will typically follow every RfA that goes over the full distance though I am unlikely to !vote in any of them that move into a direction I approve. I will not pile on if it makes no difference, so there are only two reasons for me to voice my opinion:

1. My preferred outcome of the RfA is in danger, and I believe my !vote can change that.
2. I can contribute positive, negative, or just plain interesting aspects to the discussion that have not been brought up before.

You want to nominate me?

Think again. While I (obviously) believe I fulfill my own criterion, I do not meet those of many others, particularly in terms of:

• Edit count and general activity level: I will never make 1000 edits a month. I tend to slightly take offense at my edits being reverted, and for that reason I make sure this does not happen. I know where the "preview" button is. Furthermore, I refuse outright to take up tasks just for boosting my edit count, like large-scale spelling corrections.
• Audited content work: So far I have created stubs, changed sub-stubs to stubs, and brought stubs to start level. I wrote one GA for the purpose of testing the waters. My long-term aim is to bring WikiProject Namibia's two flagship articles, Namibia and Windhoek, to GA. Don't hold your breath, it is a long way to go, and every red link I'm stumbling over will distract me. I also tested FA once and found that I do not like it. For me there is too much beating about the bush in FA articles; they are too long and too chatty. I do not enjoy reading them, never mind writing one.
• Demonstration of the need of tools: I do not need the tools, and I find it silly to work in areas where I am disadvantaged by not having them. However, I already close the odd AfD as non-admin, and I reassess CSD taggings if I come across one. Deletion (better: preservation) is the area I would scale my involvement in, should I ever be trusted with the buttons.

Still convinced I should become administrator? On the one hand, I am not too excited about the prospect. I already know how the additional tabs and drop-down options look like because our institution runs a wiki. My biggest satisfaction comes with submitting a well-researched start-class article on an important topic that nobody else cared about before--this will not change with additional user rights, and this will remain my main focus. I intend to keep my contribution to AN/I at the single-digit edit count it is today.

On the other hand, I am not afraid of the RfA hell, and I think I can be trusted with minor janitorial work. I believe I know all important policies, and much of the Long Tail as well. For administering our university projects the ability to quickly get rid of some ill-considered pages would come handy, as would the read access to deleted contributions. If you are admin yourself, or if you are a very experienced editor in good standing, go ahead and offer your nomination.