On 2/16/07, Keitei <nihthraefn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Therefore, admin candidates must:
demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have
no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do
have personal invested interest
demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion,
consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki)
demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act
upon it
I for one think this is a pretty good summary of the sorts of things
we should be looking for in candidates. Not necessarily formal
criteria, but guidelines of what a nominator or candidate should be
trying to demonstrate to the community at RFA.
I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to, say, a
couple of talk page discussions where they were able to contribute
constructively even when people disagreed with them, or even better,
discussions where they provided a third opinion which helped in a
dispute between two parties, than I would a candidate who can only
show me how many edits they made in a given namespace.
I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to some
discussions where they've shown a good understanding of policy, for
example, than a candidate who can only demonstrate they know how to
use "VandalWhacker 2.0" or whatever software is popular these days.
That sort of thing.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com