|
This is not something I follow very strictly. It only expresses the criteria that one Wikipedian would like to see a perfect admin candidate fullfill. It does certainly not have wide support in the community, but it's easier to just post the link to this page rather writing it all down over again. Please use my main discussion page if you wish to comment on this non-essay, non-guideline, non-policy page. |
Below are the criteria that I want to see fullfilled by a RFA candidate before I vote support.[1] Obviously though, rules guide wise men, while fools follow them to the last dot and comma. I may (and often will) support a candidate that fails one or several of the criteria, or (not so often) oppose a candidate that fullfills all criteria. They are hard compared to most other voters',[2] but adminship is supposedly no big deal, so why the hurry?
Criteria edit
The candidate...
- should have been a Wikipedian for at least 9 months
- should have been contributing regularly for at least 6 months
- should have at least 4000 edits in total
- should have at least 500 edits to the Wikipedia namespace
- should have at least 500 edits to talk pages
- should have at least 95 % edit summary usage
- should be an active member of at least one WikiProject
- should have contributed to at least one Featured Article
- should have no block history
- should have no post-first-day vandalism
- should have a sound understanding of Ignore All Rules
- should have good answers to RFA questions.
Explanation edit
I want a presumptive admin to have experience with Wikipedia. This includes such trivial things as having been a member of the community for a long time. People generally won't get to know someone really good in just 3 months, no matter how much time one spend talking to the person. I want a candidate to know Wikipedia really good, and it takes more that a good edit count(C3) to do so. Getting a lot of edits in no time can be done by anyone. But it takes time, upwards to a year, before one has familiarised oneself with the project and most of its guidelines. Long time membership also shows dedication to the project as a whole.(C1) Added to that, the candidate should have shown regular activity over some time to show that s/he is willing to stay here for a longer time.(C2) To show that the user has what it takes to be an admin, edits to talk pages and in the Wikipedia namespace are also necessary.(C4, C5) Being a member of a WikiProject shows that the user has the will to cooperate with others, as well as having the will to improve Wikipedia not only articlewise but also in terms of standards.(C7) One of the worst things I know are users who do not use edit summaries. I want to know why you edited the article on my watchlist without having to show the diff.(C6) A crucial criteria for adminship is that one has shown the understanding of the meaning of Wikipedia. I truly respect users who mostly do RC patrol and administrative tasks. But. We are here to build the world's best encyclopedia. We will not get there by only tagging articles for speedy delete or reverting vandalism. We must actually improve the content to get there. I want a candidate to know what it takes, and getting an article up to FA status shows that s/he knows. You will never be accepted by the people if you have never been with the people.(C8) And you will definitely not be accepted if you have treated the people bad in one way or another.(C9, C10) After more than two years at Wikipedia, I consider the most important policy to be the one stating that one should ignore rules that prevents one from improving Wikipedia, and I thus want a candidate to have a good understanding of that rule.(C11) Added to all this, the user should be able to express her/himself and her/his viewpoints in a good way.(C12)