Content deleted Content added
Line 383: ::::::::::::Strikethroughs say so much more than a Hallmark Card ever could... I would consider the nomination process an interesting intellectual exercise, and am interested in it if only to be able to challenge any prevailing opinions of what makes a good admin. I do not expect to, err, "win" anything, and will not attempt to persuade anyone that I am a good candidate for the position. I think that's where the harm begins. Rather, I would be honest about who I am and what I do, and if they don't want such a person as part of their organization, who am I to judge that? It's their club. I'll still be writing articles anyway. You decide if it would be worth it. I think at the least I can offer SandyGeorgia a snort or two, and if that's how I can pay her back for all the crap she puts up with I think that's more than fair. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::: What matters to me at RfA: is the person trustworthy, civil, an AGFer, do they add to the Project (not only content areas, but that helps), do they handle stress and conflict well, have they been around long enough to demonstrate these qualities and maturity, and will they abuse the tools. In short, do I know enough about them to know I can trust them. I don't think I've supported one yet that later embarrassed me. I don't care about all those other checklists that candidates who aren't any of those things are completing to get through RfA. And I'd much rather snort at Moni's edit summaries than read the pontifications of the admin postulates who are completing a checklist so they can gain the tools so they can flex their admin muscles to feel like a big cool dude on the 'net. Moni would be a good admin even if she pooped on a bot. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC) :::::That's part of the reason why I asked Sandy for her recommendations. There are tons of qualified people out there, but they are overlooked because they don't fit the "mold." I think the type of admin that has been passing over the past month or two is different than the type that passed even 3-4 months ago. 3-4 months ago, there was a lot of focus on XfD's and ant-vandalism. If you weren't involved there, you might not as well apply. Right now, there is more of a push for civility and trust among the community. (Dihydrogen, myself, and a few others have been noming some atypical candidates lately that are passing with flying colors, while the anti-vandal candidates are facing stiffer opposition.)[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] ([[User talk:Balloonman|talk]]) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Line 391 ⟶ 393: : You don't really have to use any. Even if you only use the them once a year thats still a net gain for the project. You should definetly run, with your editing record you shoulnd't have any trouble [[User:Acer|Acer]] ([[User talk:Acer|talk]]) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC) :: Jbmurray, I recently had a chance to observe how you handle conflict, and I'd be glad to co-nom, although I don't really know how to put a nom together very well. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC) == Zinta FAC == | |||