User:Eyes/Choosing admins

I'm expecting that a discussion of this will soon be forthcoming, given two different people who have expressed potential interest in being admins, and it looks like we'll probably soon be discussing new policy for selecting admins. I want to take the opportunity before this begins to set out some food for thought and let everyone know where I stand.

Looking for admin qualities in an editor
First, let me ask two simple questions:


 * 1) Is a wiki admin...
 * 2) *...an editor with upgraded status,
 * 3) *...or, an editor who also happens to be an admin?


 * 1) When looking at an editor's history, which is more important when looking for good or bad admin qualities?
 * 2) *Content namespace edits (regular articles).
 * 3) *Talk page edits.

According to wiki philosophy, the first question isn't just semantics. Admins are supposed to be equal to editors in content decisions, and that means the second answer is more consistent with wiki philosophy. There are four important implications to this:


 * Edits that are just standard, uncontroversial content edits tell me virtually nothing about an editor as an potential admin.
 * Good admins know they have separate editor hats and admin hats and never intentionally wear both at the same time, and even better admins try to avoid accidentally giving the impression that they are.
 * Even if I see that an editor has made significant contributions to the content of the wiki, I won't assume they're a good admin candidate just because of that. Being a hard worker just isn't the same thing as being a good leader, mediator, or mentor.
 * You don't actually need admin powers to show admin qualities. Anyone can mark spam edits for deletion, make constructive contributions to a dispute or discussion, ask for admin help when admin powers are actually needed, or help out a new user. I'll find some of these things in a good admin candidate's history.


 * As a side note, even the MediaWiki software kinda gets the first question right. I am a member of the following groups: Administrators, Autoconfirmed users, Users, Check users. Not just administrator, but administrator and user.

It then follows that talk page edits tell me more about an editor as a potential admin than regular content edits. Generally, only controversial content edits can give me any real idea about an editor as an admin, because what I need to know is how you interact with the community. That's why ultimately, if I'm skimming an editor's history to judge admin qualities, you can bet I'll check talk page edits much more closely. Being a positive force for the wiki's content just isn't enough; I want to see an editor being a positive force for the community as well.

If you happen to be wondering whether I'd be willing to back you as an admin candidate, this is what you need to look at. I'm grateful and appreciate all of the good editors we have in the community, but my support for you an potential admin doesn't reflect how I view you an editor because they are two different things. Even if you're promoted, I'll continue to judge both roles separately.