Points to think about :

• Is it important for an editor to know both process and article writing to qualify for the mop and bucket? If so, which processes? Or all of them?
• The possibility of future admins getting into problems because an issue is outside their scope of expertise (e.g. content disputes for a vandal-fighter).

1. Strongly agree with this - peace and harmony all round might be achieved through understanding the other parties position - This should cut both ways in my opinion "writing editors" should have to do RC patrol, Afd's etc. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There's a lot of parallels drawn about janitors and the 'mop and bucket' - this is all well and good. At the wikiversity I'm happy to have the rubbish removed, the floors mopped and entrust the keys to rooms to janitors. I'm less happy with allowing the janitors the say on who matriculates, who publishes work, who graduates. Great, lets have janitors, lets have specialists, but to maintain that intelligent people can't perform more than one function is more than a little hollow. As wikipedians we have rights and responsibilities - if you want the keys to the lecture theatre, then demonstrate you understand what it's like to sit in the seats. If you want to present a paper, at least show me you know where the waste paper basket is. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Without a doubt. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree fully. Having admins who do not have much experience writing articles and dealing with other editors in that process will be creating admins who lack a basic understanding of those they should be helping with those tools. I believe that admins should be prepared to take up the slack on both mop tasks and writing. Getting admin tools should not pull away a great writer and in the same sense should not give a person who solely mops, less understanding of writing and a larger mop. I do not believe you can have a respected understanding without having constant experience, I am sure wikipedia has changed over time, and editing an article on SPAM is probably entirely different from an article on George Bush. --NuclearZer0 16:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strongly agree. Very difficult to understand the issues an article editor faces without having faced those issues personally. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I tend to agree here. Admins are forced encouraged to deal with all sorts of situations - 3RR, POV pushing, and other general content issues which lead to behavioural misdemeanours - and to be lacking in this are will not benefit Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant 04:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have to dispute the term "forced to". In almost a year as an admin I've never dealt with a single 3RR issue. I'm just not interested in that area right at the moment. If I were a new admin candidate now, why should I be forced to prove competency in an area I have no intention of entering? Raven4x4x 08:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, bad choice of words. Although I don't like it 100%, "encouraged" was the next-best thing (although, to substantiate "encouraged", see User:Essjay/Bureaucrat/Messages/Promoted and Redux's version, which I can't find anywhere). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Absolutely!!! This is an encylopedia last time I checked? People aren't drawn to Wikipedia.org because of the chance of zapping vandals; no they are drawn because the site allows you to write an encyclopedia & should be rewarded for doing so. Zapping vandals should only be a side activity that you get to do once you've proven yourself doing what the site was intended to be used for - writing. We don't make people admins for talking on talk pages, this is just a side activity like RC patrolling. If suddenly there was a shortage on vandals etc, then I garauntee there would be a load of inactive admins out there. That's why I suppose they get little respect, because people don't really think they do any real writing work. If more admins were elected on writing merits, then they'd be more respected & there would be better articles all round. Alas, this is not to be... Spawn Man 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Are you sure? I would have thought that if admins were elected on writing merits, the quality of articles would go down because our best article writers would be busy closing AFDs, clearing out CAT:CSD, and blocking vandals rather than writing articles. --ais523 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, the term here thoguh is "all-rounders". By that I mean equal staples of both sides. However, my point is, that instead, many admins nowadays only have non-writing achievements. Sure there will always be only article writers & only sysop activity people, but I'd like there to be a better percentage of admins who have both... Spawn Man 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Agree. Though I definitely don't think they need be "expert" contributors to the writing side. --Dweller 13:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you trust someone to be an admin otherwise, then you really should be able to trust that they will not plunge into situations that they have no experience with using their admin powers. I do feel that it's necessary to have some sort of process participation, since people who just do article writing really won't know how admin tools are supposed to be used. -Amarkov moo! 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Admin's should be trustworthy. No more, no less. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. What for? I'd like image specialist admins to deal with the images, so admins who could write decent articles don't have to waste their time doing it. Kusma (討論) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disagree strongly. I personally never work with images, and probably never will. Doesn't mean I should be opposed for it. Same with opposing comments "little experience in XfD..." So what? If they haven't mentioned they will do XfD closing, there's no need to point out the obvious. Any sensible candidate will do their research before doing something in an unfamiliar area (e.g. today I added some items to Did You Know. It was tough, but I managed it, and no-one's complained yet). Same with lack of XfDs-type opposes - assume good faith they won't do anything stupid. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strongly disagree. Admins are trusted in two specific ways: 1) to competently carry out their duties in the areas they're familiar with, and 2) to recognize which areas they're unfamiliar with and to use a lot of restraint when using their admin bits in those areas. As long as they have enough experience to recognize what their limits are, then they'll be a suitable admin. (that said, article writing is the core thing we do here, and most of us from time to time have benefited from getting away from other things and getting back to writing) --Interiot 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Disagree. No reason for every admin to spread themselves thinly across the entire project. MLA 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. No, it is not important for them to have experience doing everything, but they must demonstrate good judgment as to whether they have the experience to step into certain situations or not. -- Renesis (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strongly disagree. If Wikipedia was a college, this would be akin to forcing janitors to have a Masters degree in Janitorology. We're just gnomes that do the will of the community as documented in the project policies and guidelines. We don't have to be featured article writers to block someone for making legal threats. We don't need to have articles in DYK to delete spamvertisements that meet the G11 criteria of WP:CSD. I know some folks don't believe the mop/bucket analogy is accurate, but none of what we do here is sexy. It's scut work that we do because we love the project and want to contribute, and everyone has different specialties. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. People should be given adminship because it will make things easier for them to do something in particular. As Renesis13 says, if they know that they're inexperienced in an area, they shouldn't go jumping in there and doing controversial things without knowing what they're doing. Article writing is only important for an administrator as far as it develops knowledge of content policies (which can be obtained in other ways); but I wouldn't oppose an administrator just because they had no experience with images, for instance, or with interface messages, unless they wanted the tools for that reason. A user who wants admin tools to streamline vandalfighting shouldn't be opposed for a lack of article edits or of copyedits on the Main Page, and an admin who wants the tools to sort out technical problems with templates and interface messages shouldn't be opposed for lack of vandalfighting, for instance. --ais523 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
10. I rarely do vandal-fighting; that doesn't mean other blocking, page protection, and deletions should be denied to me. Ral315 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. No. While admins should UNDERSTAND editors, that can be done through writing, antivandalism, typo stuff, copyediting... ST47Talk 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Certainly not. No person not spending full time here can possibly be effective in all the aspects of editorship. However, there should be some recent experience with it. For someone with no experiences in AfDs or in policy discussions, it becomes a valid question of just what purpose the adminship is intended. But we need admins who are not WPedians beyond everything in the Real World.DGG 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. If an admin wants to work in a certain area (indicated by Q1), then surely they should have a bit of experience with it, but opposes because of "Wants to do X but doesn't have experience with it" are less-than-ideal. If experience in a process is more important than knowledge of policy and guidelines related to that process, then said policies and guidelines direly, exigently need to be rewritten. To further qualify, it's good for an admin to not be a total introvert, but otherwise, being weaker in certain areas is okay. Gracenotes^T § 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. I disagree with this. Admins should, IMO, have some basic mediation experience, and of course article writing is a nice bonus, but I certainly do not think writing should be a full-blown rule. Yuser31415 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Admins can do what they're good at. If we took Roger Federer and didn't list him in a Sports Hall of Fame because he sucked at baseball, what kind of Hall would it be? Same applies here.{Slash-|-Talk} 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Why should admins be all-rounders when few editors are? Guy (Help!) 23:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Absolutely not. The fact that people will say "While they're good at reverting vandalism, this person has never helped with backlog, nor have they ever written a FA, nor have they joined a WikiProject..." is stupid in my opinion. Specialization is what makes this thing run. Most of the people who participate in process don't do much article writing, and vice versa. However, both are essential to the running of Wikipedia. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. "Jack of all trades - master of none"? Play to your strength I'd say. Agathoclea 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Why not let people do what they are good at? Some are good at housekeeping, others are good at dispute resolution. We need both, and we don't get enough of them if we keep looking for the magic candidate. --Edokter (Talk) 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Although it would help in some special situation, no they don't all half to be. — Moe 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strongly disagree. Why should we deny candidates the chance to help because they haven't done everything? We should trust good candidates to stick to the things they are knowledgeable about and stay away from the things they are not. Raven4x4x 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. I don't close AFD discussions or clean up CSD. They're important functions, of course, but I specialize in other things. As I recently argued at Hu12's candidacy, an orchestra hires a cello player for being a great cellist, not for also being a mediocre trumpeter. Durova^Charge! 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Some things are essential, others aren't. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. The more processes the better but noone has mastered them all and picking any particular one as a must will do more harm (by excluding helpful admin candidates) than good. Eluchil404 05:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Specialized admins for specialized circumstances. All editors, admins or not, have the personal responsibility to contribute in areas they know, and to recognize their own limitations in areas they don't; if we can't trust someone to do that, then we probably don't want that person as an admin. I do think all admins should have significant experience in content creation; it's a myth that 'a good manager can manage anything'. Opabinia regalis 05:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. If an admin doesn't know the page protection policy, but doesn't ever protect a page, I see no problems. Everyone does theirown thing, and if a user does only one thing well, they should be allowed to function fully instead of waiting for an admin to do it. James086^Talk 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Adminship isn't about writing article. Admins should no processes. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 19:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. False. I had never seen TfD before in my life, but somehow it became the area where I performed 95% of my admin actions. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. I don't expect article editors to be all-rounders, and I don't expect admins to be so either. If people stick to what they are good at, enjoy doing, and have the free time to do, burnout rates will be much slower. Also, some areas of policy are very complicated: it is unrealistic to expect admins to have a complete knowledge of, for example, copyright policy/law - people go to law school for years to learn this sort of thing. Rje 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. The more time wears on, the more I realize that Wikipedia is an orchestra. (Someone else came up with that analogy somewhere and I liked it.) Everyone has their own interests and specialties, and they should focus on those. Grandmasterka 08:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be User:Durova. Great job. Grandmasterka 10:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31. Let those who like doing dispute resolution get on with it, same goes for RC patrollers, image sorting, XfD, stubbing or any other area of Wikipedia. The mark of a good admin isn't that he/she is involved in every facet of Wikipedia because in the end their contribution to everything will be minimal. But that they undertand the workings of Wikipedia, where to find the information and more importantly how to use it if they are ever called to work in an area outside their normal comfort zone. We notice editors because of the exemplary work they do in a specific area, you don't then take a large percentage of their time away from that area and make them work somewhere else, which may not be of interest to them, just to fulfill some check boxes. You give them the tools and give them greater ownership of their area. ^Khukri 12:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. It helps a bit, but pushed too far it is elitist nonsense.--Doc^g 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. It isn't necessary, but they shouldn't act clueless while dealing with certain aspects of the encyclopedia. Knowing the policies and guidelines is the key. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. No editor can possibly be good in all the fields Adminstrators cover. They should only be experienced in the processes they will handle. There's no point in requiring something that will have no bearing on an admin's effectiveness.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong no, same reasons as Khukri. Abeg92contribs 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)![reply]
36. Strongly disagree. Too many good candidates are rejected because of "not enough XfD activity" or "no vandal-fighting." Admins should know what they are not good at and not use the tools until they understand the particular area of Wikipedia. For example, I have no experience with images, so if I were an admin I wouldn't delete images until I had gained some experience. It's as simple as that. --N Shar 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Absolutely disagree. There is a certain faction on Wikipedia that feels admins are here to "serve" content creators and so they must be content creators themselves. I see this POV being pushed everywhere, in RFA votes and elsewhere. The tasks of an admin are actually quite specific and limited, mainly dealing with problem users and evaluating consensus before closing debates. I have tried to nominate outstanding vandal-fighters in the past because I felt they could use the tools; they declined, citing concerns over lack of substantive edits. Admins need to be familiar with policy, effective at fighting abuse, and, above all else, diplomatic. Many admins in the faction I mentioned fail the last test. --Ideogram 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. No, article writing is not important for adminship, as the tools aren't anything to do with editing articles. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)11:14, Friday, 23 February '07
39. Disagree. Many users nowadays are being opposed because they don't know everything. Well, there's hundreds upon hundreds of kilobytes (or is it kibibytes) on Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is simply impossible to know every single detail of guidance written on Wikipedia. I've never been to WP:UCFD, barely show up at WP:CFD, WP:RFD and WP:IFD, but I go regularly to WP:MFD and WP:TFD. Still, I would be opposed for "lack of knowledge of image policy" in the current climate, just because I don't like to deal with images, regardless of whether I know the relevant image policy or not. The same occurs with others. Admins naturally specialize in tasks; it is human nature to do whatever one finds {amusing | comfortable | interesting}. There are processes that would collapse if one or two users stopped doing them, precisely due to specialization. What matters is whether an admin has the common sense to figure out what he/she is doing before doing it. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Absolutely not. I'm fine with "It is preferable for admins to be completely well-rounded," but this need not be a should. I certainly prefer an editor that has edited plenty of mainspace articles, but this 1) is not an absolute necessity, and 2) is not as important as having a lot of talk, user talk, and WP talk edits- gauging community opinions and reactions is far more important to being a sysop than writing FAs (or anything). But moreso, why I fall into the "No" category is because I don't feel that every admin needs to know every policy. If an admin does not deal with images, that's fine with me; if someone questions him/her about an image problem, he/she should direct the inquirer to an admin with more image experience. Obviously, all admins should know the ins and outs of Attribution, SNOW, IAR, and other vital policies and guidelines that could theoretically affect any and all debates. However, we don't need every admin to devote their time to vandalism, nor fair use criteria, nor any other single aspect of the encyclopedia. If I was running for adminship (which I have no plans of ever doing), I would be very open- I'd have no problem saying "I think you should support my adminship even though I don't have experience with FUC or on AIV, since I plan on focusing on [so on and so forth]," because I would gladly support a candidate who is strong in some areas when he/she has no aspirations of dealing with what he/she doesn't know. -- Kicking222 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. There are definately good reasons to being well rounded, but this need not be mandatory. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Not at all. The only criterion should be "not likely to fuck up". People don't tend to get involved in things they're not interested in, so it doesn't really matter that they lack experience in them, and should they get involved and fuck up, well, never mind, someone can undo it soon enough. Grace Note 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. If taken to the extreme, as some may be keen to do (I'm not implying anyone here, much less the people who support this), even Jimbo Wales would not be able to attain adminship if he were to go through RfA now. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. In workplaces and sadly on Wikipedia, there is too much emphasis on people being a 'jack of all trades'. In relaity this can be useful if there is a shortage of skills, i.e. a small office, but on something like Wikipedia, there are more than enough people to go round to have focus and concentrate on one area only that they can really become specialists in, and I believe would better serve Wikipedia. --PrincessBrat 11:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Some people write articles, some work in the meta. Altough we are here to write an encylopedia, many otherwise good admins are turned down because they have yet to get an article to FA status or somthing silly like that. ffm ^yes? 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong oppose - An admin does not necessarily have to have experience in everything. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Tony Sidaway 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Administrators should simply be trusted users with a sysop bit.[reply]
48. Disagree. If everyone had to do everything, we'd have very few administrators. —METS501 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Whole heartedly disagree. Being an admin has to do strictly with the mop and bucket. As I've said, if you willing to do hard work and we can trust you your a good candidate. There is no need to have written a FA or something first. Some experience is needed, but that's not what an admin deals with day to day. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. All rounded in the sense of knowing what makes a good encyclopedia article and in knowing what the policies for deletion/undeletion, blocking/unblocking and protecting/unprotecting are yes. All rounded in the sense of actively writing articles and actively participating in all those areas, no. GRBerry 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per GRBerry. Must be familiar with and understand, yes - must be active, no. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per GRBerry. "Should" is a little strong, but it is preferable for me if an RFA candidate is. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Isn't this what RFA decides, if the RFA participants believe strongly in a set of characteristics required in an admin, then they'll be the ones normally promoted. Definitely can't see how any hard and fast rules could be defined for this, the current system allows a certain amount of flexibility to react to current problems/issues. --pgk 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Preferrably, but not needed if they are willing to listen. However, they should know how articles work and not be shouting their dictates from ivory towers like they do now. Just H 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not sure about what this question is getting at. I don't see how many admins can truly understand all the processes of en.WP. They obviously should understand the processes they where they intend to function as admins. Since there is really no neutral feedback or "process leaders" or training I don't how someone could claim to be and "all-rounder" short of simply having very high self-esteem.--BirgitteSB 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
7. I don't think admins should necessarily be all-arounders, but I do think (and will !vote) that potential admins should have significant experience as contributors, not just process wonks or deleters. Anyone unfamiliar with the difficulties faced by people who try to contribute will not be sufficiently sympathetic to the people building the encyclopedia. Potential admins should spend *some* time dealing with the various processes - XfD, RfC, AN/* etc., also - they're going to need to learn a bunch of stuff once confirmed, but they should learn those things they can before they become admins. Αργυριου (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Most of the time I think this is useful. However, there are the occassional trusted nominees that perform useful work in narrow areas where the admin bit makes that work much more efficient. In these cases where the nominee is expressing a narrow area to use admin privileges, I have no problem giving the thumbs up. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think it's preferable that admins have some experience in both process and article writing, but I don't see this as a requirement. ChazBeckett 13:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Varied experience is a good thing, but it's not a must-have. Because we're struggling to handle the problems, some sorts of specialism are preferable, particularly those related to images and investigative work. I have real difficulty in seeing how an editor can understand Wikipedia without having made some efforts at content building. Everything else we do is secondary to, or supportive of, this main activity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. "Allround" is too broad. But an admin should know processes as well as understand the idea behind the encyclopedia. For example, "deletion-only" admin functions will attract people with a deletionist point-of-view, which might introduce severe bias in deletion processes. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. My main criteria for RFA is if I know the candidate to be trustworthy and have fair reasoning ability. Given that the point of the site is to build the encyclopedia, a potential admin should show these skills in improving and expanding content. I expect some edits that show knowledge of policy, and don't mind if they end up specializing in purely administrative tasks once sysopped, but feel very uncomfortable with the thought of a body of admins whose actions are not mainspace-focused. (Note that I'm not talking about actual edits, but impossible-to-quantify intention.) - BanyanTree 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. The admin should know how to write an article and about policy, but they don't need to be active in everything. It would be a headache. bibliomaniac15 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Quite the same opinion as Bibliomaniac, except I'd lay less stress on article writing than on diversity of article contributions. Admins should ideally be articulate about more than two or three topics. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. We live in an imperfect world. It's desirable that we have admins who can handle any task that's thrown at them, but it's not reasonable to require it. Specialist knowledge is a good thing, anyway. --kingboyk 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]