User:Blankfaze/admin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My standard requirements for supporting a nomination for adminship are as follows:

Contents

[edit] The vague, statistic type of standards

[edit] Number of edits

I generally like to see 2,000+ edits to a candidate's name before supporting him or her. This standard recieves a lot of flack from some people, but I think it's important, for a few reasons. Firstly, I know I myself wasn't fit for adminship when I had <1,000 edits. Secondly, the more edits, the more experience, right? I want experienced admins. Thirdly, ~2,000 edits lets me know that someone is really into this project, which I think admins should be.

My primary concern is that someone with <2,000 edits might not be familiar enough with Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia etiquette, the community, and the dynamics of this whole thing. I want admins that are very familiar with the way things work. I especially want admins to know our policies through and through.

All that said, my "number of edits" standard is not a hard rule; it's more of a guideline. For instance, if a candidate has 1,200 - 1,500 edits, but those edits are lots of good, large, thorough edits, and I don't have reason to dislike the candidate, and the candidate meets my other standards, I will generally support, or at least not oppose.

[edit] Time registered

I generally look for candidates to have been registered members for about three months at minimum. I think that any less than that is generally not enough time for a candidate to be as familiar with the project as I would like. Three months gives time to be involved in disputes, so I can get a good idea of how a candidate handles them. Three months gives time to get to know other uses. To read policies. To get familiarised with all the nooks and crannies of Wikipedia.

Again, this is not a hard rule, but it is generally more of a hard rule than my "number of edits" standard. I could really only see myself supporting someone with <2 months experience if the candidate was really, really, really qualified.

[edit] The more important factors

[edit] POV editing

If I notice POV editing in a candidate's history, I will generally oppose his or her nomination. Wikipedia has no place at all for POV, save for talk pages. While I realise that everyone has opinions, I strongly believe that editors who can not separate their opinions from their editing would not make suitable admins.

I'm concerned that given admin powers, a POV editor would simply use them to more easily push their POV, by perhaps protecting article versions they favour, or using sysop reverts to push POV versions of an article, or perhaps even blocking users/anon IPs with different opinions, or deleting content/images that he or she disagrees with or finds offensive.

[edit] Dispute issues

I like to see candidates with little or no edit-warring in their history. I'm fearful that giving he or she a one-click revert button will only better facilitate his or her propensity for edit-warring. Also, little or no edit wars indicate a candidate who prefers to talk things out and try to hammer out compromises rather than being uncooperative and closeminded.

If there is more than a little edit-warring in a candidate's history, I'd like to see either that he or she has reformed or that he or she was in the right most of the time (edit-warring with trolls, POV warriors, vandals, or uncooperative editors).

Also, it is highly unlikely that I would ever support for adminship anyone that has ever been decided against in arbitration and/or blocked from editing.

[edit] Familiarity

While it may be unfair to some users, I am generally more likely to support, or at least bend my personal standards for, users who I have either seen around or interacted with. Of all the criteria by which one can judge someone's adeptness, none, I think, gives you as good an idea of a user's suitability as personal interaction does.

[edit] Notes on bureaucratship

My standards for supporting a bureaucratship request are basically the same as my standards for supporting an adminship nomination. However, I prefer to see at least an additional four months of tenure, for a total of about seven months on the project, as a minimum. Also, I place more emphasis on the "POV editing", "dispute issues", and "familiarity" sections above. Even though bureaucrats have few additional powers, bureaucratship is a symbol of leadership and trust at Wikipedia. I generally will not support a bureaucratship request from a user who I have not seen around or interacted with.

I am not a bureaucrat, but were I one, my guidelines for promoting admin candidates would be as follows:

  • >80% support — promote
  • 75-80% — probably promote, unless there is noted opposition from one or more respected member of the community, in which case I would make the decision I thought was best, by considering the merit of users both supporting and opposing, as well as any specific objections/compliments
  • 70-75% — probably wait for a wiser, more sagacious bureaucrat to make the decision

[edit] My voting history

[edit] Statistics

An analysis of my past votes at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship:

In my time here at Wikipedia, I have cast 143 votes at WP:RFA, of which 55.2% are support votes, 38.5% are oppose votes, and 6.3% are neutral votes.

Of the 79 support votes I have cast, the candidate has gone on to be promoted in 71 cases (89.9%). Of the 55 oppose votes I have cast, the candidate has gone to be promoted 20 times (36.4%). Of the 9 neutral votes I have cast, the candidate has gone on to be promoted 4 times (44%).

This analysis does not include any of my votes on bureaucratship requests (see above).

[edit] Support votes cast (79)

[edit] Oppose votes cast (54)

[edit] Neutral votes cast (9)

* Nomination eventually failed
† User I myself nominated
†† Special re-application for adminship ordered by the Arbitration Committee

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/a/User%7EBlankfaze_admin_f810.html"