MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Yes.
I would like to see candidates knowledgeable and willing to take on one particular admin task. If they want to work in another, they need to do the required legwork to know how things work. I still haven't applied a range block, because I know I'd mess it up. It's pointless to force someone to work in every possible admin workfield. There's so much people who are clueless about copyright that if people need to know everything, we'd need to oppose adminship of pretty much everyone when it comes to their WP:PUI and copyright speedy work.
That is pretty much how my (self-nom) RfA passed, in fact. There was some mildly heated debate about my lack of WP-space edits (aside from AIV), and about how I didn't really contribute to the writing of articles but only did RC patrol. But as I explained on that page, that's kind of the point:
"After reading my comments through, I notice that there is one common thread across the votes I am citing: I don't do enough /different/ things. But I ask what the value is of requiring candidates to be competent at everything -- my time is better spent doing things that I am good at. I get the feeling that there is a lot of worry that I will misapply policies in other areas. But generally speaking I don't /want/ to be involved in a lot of things. I want to get out my mop and polish one or two areas of Wikipedia until they shine. I want to focus my energy where it is best applied. We have other admins who are good at dispute resolution (for example) and the like, but not great at RC patrol. Generally, RC patrol doesn't require a whole lot of debate, discussion, and 'process.' The application of these requirements in this department will be very difficult to pass. --Chris (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)" [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crazycomputers]]
Examining the oppose votes, there is not one that claims that I would abuse the tools, just that I'm "unfamiliar with process", "low WP:-space editcount", etc. All of which are fundamentally irrelevant to blocking vandals, which was my reason for nominating myself in the first place.
We don't need more admins who can juggle knives while riding a unicycle on a tightrope. Not to equate admins who can do a lot with a circus show (though their talk pages are usually good reading :) ). But the RfA criteria are generally way too strict. Being an admin is not about being able to recite every policy page in WP: by heart and being able to bring an article up to FA status while voting on every AfD in sight. It's about not abusing the extra tools, and that's it.
It's been over eight months since the nomination passed, and I've never stopped acting in what I believe are the best interests of the community. I still RC patrol on a regular basis and occasionally clean out WP:AIV or CAT:CSD. I can say with absolute certainty that I've never abused the admin tools.
I'm not saying this to parade my admin-level contributions and make a big deal out of it, but think for a second:
My RfA came pretty darn close to failing, for objections in areas that I have not, nor ever intended to use the admin tools.
How many RfAs have failed for the same reason, when the nominee was in the same boat as me? How much help with these backlogs have we turned away?
Scary.