User:JackTheVicar/My personal criteria for supporting RfA candidates

This criterion, which I apply in supporting or opposing candidates for administration rights, reflect my personal opinions based on my own experiences and my observations of other users' experiences with the complex interpersonal dynamic environments present within the Wikipedia community.

It is my sincere belief that RfA is a broken process. The system needs a massive overhaul. Reform is long overdue. First, "Adminship" shouldn't be a life-long right. I think new admins should have a probationary period, and they should stand for reelection. Further, it's easy to manipulate the vote count, as opposition or support is easily susceptible to collaborative voting seen by a voting bloc of members representing a shared agenda, or some of the editing cliques. The cabal is real and they support their own. Until the RfA process is reformed, and administrative rights are granted for only 2 years by an RfA, you should support reforming the system and be able to identify why the system is broken.

Seeking power and position as an administrator on the English Wikipedia is a privilege. Too many current administrators take that for granted. A few are downright vindictive assholes. Because of the decline in active administrators, it is a fact that Wikipedia needs more skilled people to be promoted to administrator. However, we don't need more vindictive assholes.

I am open minded. I will give a candidacy a fair and thorough assessment. I am willing to support a candidate at Requests for Adminship if the criteria below are met. I reserve the right to stray from this criteria if extraordinary circumstances warrant (which will be enumerated with my vote). Further, if I oppose a candidacy, I will reconsider my vote if a second RfA comes up after a reasonable period of time and a candidate who addresses the issues which led to my first-RfA opposition.

Note: I have no desire to be an administrator. I just write and edit. The obligations of an administrator have the potential to take a content contributor away from what he/she does best. For what I do, I don't need any power.

If you want my support for RfA, it's simple...

1. Be a content contributor with a solid record of articles that are at least B-class in quality. If possible, it is preferable that a candidate has tried his/her hand at preparing a few GAs or at least one FA. Sadly, Wikipedia's content contributors tend to have an uphill battle. They're run through the ringer. If you aren't a content contributor and know what it's like to nurture and develop content, what it's like to argue with people who don't want to hear your reasoning, how can you deign sit in judgment of someone who has? Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopaedia. The rest is ancillary--you should be here for something substantial beyond the social media drama, bureaucratic tasks or backlog drudgery.
2. Recognise the need for Reform - I will start asking candidates to examine and recognise that RfA processes and administrative rights are broken and need to be reformed. As part of the enquiry, I will ask RfA candidates to think of a solution to any of the many systemic problems that plague RfA and Adminship.
3. Be open to recall - knowing that the adminship situation is a mess and that administrators can become assholes, you will get my support if you state that you will be open to recall if your behavior violates conditions that you have clearly-outlined and pledge will be irrevocable. If you are not open to recall, I may exercise my prerogative to not oppose your candidacy, but it will be harder to support you.
4. The inmates shouldn't run the asylum. If you have in the past self-identified or currently do self-identify with some sort of affliction (mental, physical, emotional, spiritual, etc.) that makes me question your ability to do the job well, I'll be very cautious about your suitability for the position and apt to oppose. If you feign such a self-identification to try to get a pass for bad behavior = automatic oppose.
5. Don't stoke the fires of drama. Don't be an admin wannabe trying to call for people's heads or starting arguments at WP:AN, especially WP:AN/I. If you're causing drama at the dramaboards, making quick condescending judgments about another user at those boards, or persecuting another user at ArbCom, you will likely earn my opposition in CAPS. The only thing worse than an abusive admin is an abusive admin wannabe shooting from the hip and shouting "off with their head". Users typically run to WP:AN when they've lost on the merits or never had a decent position to fight for in the first place and having lost feel like whining about the big-bad persons who had a decent argument and didn't want to put up with their shit. WP:AN is made a worse cesspool by admin-wannabes lurking, waiting for an opportunity to hang, draw, and quarter someone.
6. Don't be a Dick. If you're an abusive martinet, or have the potential to be one, you probably lack the correct temperament to have power over others. One can see that kind of disaster coming a mile away. Wikipedia has enough mega-dickish administrators, it doesn't need another. It's an encyclopaedia, not a Zimbardo experiment.
7. Don't be a (insert "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" here). Obsessive edit warriors are not cool. Don't try to exhibit ownership over an article or a fiefdom of articles. Don't edit war over little shit because of said ownership. Don't be an obstinate wall of opposition in content disputes. Don't repeat and repeat and repeat the same old argument on talk pages in support of your ownership. If I review your contributions and arguments, and notice that others accuse you of ownership behavior and "I didn't hear that" behavior, you will not get my support. Other users have good ideas that sometimes aren't your ideas. If you won't hear another user's side or admit that you're wrong and let someone else with the right or better idea prevail, you should really find another hobby. We all have run into people like that. Sometimes we are that person. Don't edit war. It isn't worth it.
8. Don't bring an agenda to editing. Don't be a person who edits or performs tasks with an agenda. We don't need feminists, chauvinists, sexists, racists, fascists, etc., trying to own content and express their propaganda, or to wield Wikipedia's policies or processes as a hammer to aid pushing their agenda. Keep an open-mind when writing or improving content and be objective about presenting facts, not opinions. It's an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox or bully pulpit.
9. Don't give a vague answer to RfA Question 3. It's a stock question asked of every candidate: Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? Answer with specifics--who did you have disputes with? how were they resolved? what did you learn from it? how specifically did you change your behaviors or tactics that led to the dispute? We all have disputes. We all make mistakes. Sadly, most disputes don't cause a user to reflect on how they were a fucktard. We can forgive a moment or two of being an idiot, but to do so it requires someone who is self-aware enough to reflect on their actions and reform themselves. The post-conflict effort matters. Be willing about admitting that you fucked up. Be willing also be forthcoming of what you learned from it and learned about yourself. If you can't analyze what caused a dispute, if you don't learn, if you don't seek to improve, you don't deserve the administrative tools.
10. Don't be collecting hats. Some people want certain privileges or credentials out of status chasing. Do not be seeking powers just because they're there to be had. If you contribute by doing a certain task that builds the encyclopaedia and tools are useful, that's great. But to be an administrator because you want to be seen climbing the social ladder is lame.
11. Don't be afraid to ask for advice. I'd rather see someone willing to learn, ready to get advice or ask questions of someone more experienced than someone going it alone, trying to forge their way through a problem or difficult situation relying on sheer will or obstinance thinking because something has to be done. I will respect someone who admits they don't have all the answers and as a result is curious enough to find them in the right places.
12. Ignore All Rules matters. I need to see an understanding of and commitment to WP:IAR. I make no apologies for this: rules too often get in the way of building the encyclopaedia.