User:Durin/My guidelines for admin nomination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

On the page User:Durin/Admin voting measures I've outlined my measures for evaluating an admin nominee. However, my standards for nominating an editor to be an admin are stricter. Why:

  • As can be found in various other comments on my pages, I am never after the low hanging fruit. There are plenty of editors and admins that find people who are well qualified to be an admin, and they will frequently nominate them before I do. As a result, the types of people that I would tend to nominate are less flashy, work deeper in the trenches, and don't do quite as much that would draw attention to themselves.
  • My intention in nominating people is that if I nominate them, they will pass with flying colors. Thus, over time, the very weight of my nomination will weigh heavily in the RfA. This isn't an attempt at future pride. I would feel tremendously guilty if I nominated someone, the RfA failed, and as a result the editor left Wikipedia. Also, see the next comment in this list.
  • I want to encourage the admin pool to improve over time. By my nominating people under strict standards, I think it will help to promote careful review of candidates before they are nominated, rather than people making nominations only to find out they are very ill-suited to being an admin, and having the nominee quit Wikipedia (which has happened).


Contents

[edit] My admin nomination standards

  • Impeccable behavior:
  • No vandalism, period.
  • No insults to other users, harsh or otherwise.
  • No edit wars.
  • Never blocked for legitimate reasons.
  • No RfCs brought in good faith about the editor. As a result, no RfArs either.
  • Demonstrated coolness under stress.
  • Has not engaged in self aggrandizement.
  • No useless, overly gaudy signature. It's a pet peeve of mine. Adding links to your signature for things like "talk" and etc. is fine. Signatures that force a line break can break up formatting. Signatures that overflow in colors just strike me as "Look at me! Look at ME! It's all about MOI! Aren't I cool?"
  • Clearly passes all my voting measures.
  • Have more than 3,000 edits. This might seem extreme, but as I said I'm not after low hanging fruit.
  • Have been here for more than six months. ( " (see above) " )
  • No significant gaps or reductions in contributions over the last two months, unless easily explained.
  • Has no prior failed RfAs (some bending of this guideline may occur)
  • Is not an extreme inclusionist or an extreme deletionist.
  • Is not trying hard to become an admin. Adminship should be something you get as a result of your work here, not something you get because you strove for it; we're not building a cabal of admins, we're building an encyclopedia.
  • Significant (subjective) contributions in many (not necessarily all) of the following:

[edit] Want me to nominate you?

  • First, asking me is not self aggrandizement. It's just saying "I want to contribute more to Wikipedia".
  • Second, read all the above carefully and evaluate yourself against my standards. If you don't meet them, don't ask, or provide a strong rationale why you would be an exception.
  • Third, ask! I'm not an ogre and won't bite off your head :)


[edit] Editors I am currently watching

The following are users I am currently considering for possible nomination. Presence on this list does not mean they pass my standards, mearly that they perked my curiousity for one reason or another and that I need to investigate further.

  • User:Avriette check
  • User:Tango this edit caught my attention. October 31, 2006 update: Contributions increasing, but still below bottom metric.
  • User:Swid Impressed the hell out of me by actually contacting the copyright authority regarding usage of the state Seal of Nebraska. October 31, 2006 update: Quite active, but almost non-participant in Wikipedia namespace.

[edit] Editors I have watched

  • User:Encephalon. Six months up 5 February 2006. Will easily clear 3,000 edits by then. Interesting design of user and user talk pages. Cursory review; active in WP:AFD, deletion review, WP:CFD, WP:AN. Use of edit summaries overall is 88%, 98.2% over last 500 edits. He interacts with a lot of admins already, and is a participant in CVU so I expect he'll be nominated long before I get to him. Update (2 January 2006): On wiki-break due to outside commitments. Inactive since 27 November 2005. Update (27 March 2006): Became active again. Went up for RfA recently and is easily passing.
  • User:Lomn ~1800 edits currently; six months up 20 January 2006. Will reach 3,000 edits approximately 15 December 2005. Edit summary use currently 97.6% over last 500 edits (nice!). Conducted some interesting statistical analysis [1] [2]. Distribution of edits is strong. Had some work featured on "Did You Know..." Update (2 January 2006): User's mostly inactive since late October. Will reconsider if user becomes signficantly active again for at least a couple of months.
  • User:Mendel - Six months up already, as user joined March of 2004. Edit summaries at 85%, though last 500 are 77.2%. Has 1506 edits. Edits per day average over last 30 is 13.3. At current averages, will cross 3,000 edits in mid February 2006. Had two major gaps in contributions lasting ~6 months and ~7 months. Bit troubling on that point, but he's been solid since early July. If he stays solid through February, there shouldn't be an issue. He's engaged to User:Nyxie. First Wikimarriage? :) >200 votes in deletion discussion. >250 reverts. Talk page is clean of any significant controversy. Update (2 January 2006): User's vanished from project as of mid-November.
  • User:Mjpieters - 641 edits as of 21 October 2005. Long way to go. 6 months up 15 January 2006. Strong activity since late September. Became the subject of an RfAr 9 October 2005, but I believe the RfAr was frivolous. It was soundly rejected 12 October 2005 by arbitrators and removed [3]. He is probably not an ideal candidate for me to nominate, but I will temporarily list him here pending further review. Update (2 January 2006): Outside of 2 edits, completely inactive since 22 November 2005. Update (8 March 2006): Back active again, with 200 contributions so far in March, and ~70 in February.
  • User:Pschemp. Well clear of 3,000 edits already. Six months already up, but six months of significant activity is not. Spike in activity began ~12 January 2006, with some increase beginning a few weeks prior to that. Apparently a big vandal fighter. Active in WP:FAC, WP:AFD, WP:RFA, etc. Somebody will likely get to this candidate before I do simply because of high visibility. But, at almost four months of significant activity...I'm not ready to nominate yet. Re-check ~15 June 2006. Update I added this candidate to this page and four hours later she was nominated. Are people really watching this page that closely? Hmm :)
  • User:Petros471 cool head, 3000 edits coming up in May. Need to review further. Update: User nominated a few days after I added to this page.

[edit] What to do if I have nominated you

  • First, Congratulations! My nomination standards are probably way overboard, but you passed anyways.
  • DO NOT ACT QUICKLY. Please proceed slowly. Read and complete or understand the below suggestions. This will take a while, but doing so helps to ensure a smooth nomination for you, and a better experience for Wikipedia in giving you the privileges as an administrator.
  • Please understand and respect that in nominating you I have placed my trust in you. Don't do anything foolish :)
  • Prior to proceeding with the nomination, I recommend you review the RfAs for the top ten most supported admin nominations to get a feel for how strongly successful nominations proceeded. In particular, read comments by voters and the answers to the questions at the bottom of each RfA. You can review the list of top ten most supported admin nominations here: User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records.
  • You should read Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide to get an idea of what admins are capable of doing, and get a feel for areas where you might want to contribute, if you do not already have some ideas.
  • You should read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list as well.
  • Go to your preferences page at Special:Preferences. On the "User profile" tab, put an e-mail address contact point for yourself, and make sure the "Enable email from other users" box is checked. Now check your email inbox and click the confirmation link in the Wikipedia email confirmation message. Some RfA voters find an e-mail contact point for an admin to be important.
  • Carefully follow instructions located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate under "What to do if you are nominated". Some people, including myself, do not view errors in the nomination process by the nominee kindly. BE CAREFUL and precise in your following of the instructions. If you are uncertain of how to proceed exactly, then by all means ask me.
  • When you are ready to place the RfA at WP:RFA, make sure that the end date of the RfA is today's date +7 days. The ending time should roughly match the time the RfA is posted to WP:RFA. Small errors in ending time are not usually a matter of concern to RfA voters. Getting the date wrong can be a major concern. If you want to post the RfA yourself, feel free. If you'd feel more comfortable having me do it, I'd be happy to post it for you.
  • Do not vote for yourself on your RfA nomination. This is expressly forbidden, and some voters tend to view it in a rather poor light.
  • Similarly, do not campaign; do not put messages out to people letting them know you're running for RfA, or change your signature to have something regarding your RfA in it. You should stand on your own merits (and most likely will). Campaigning is often viewed very negatively by voters at RfA.
  • Answer all questions on your RfA nomination. Be detailed, and precise in your answers. Citing examples where appropriate is useful. Again, reviewing the nominations of the top ten most successful candidates may help here.
  • Keep up to date on your RfA. If a person commenting on the RfA asks a question, answer it. If you expect to be gone for a day or more during the nomination period (which last seven days), then do not put the RfA on the WP:RFA page until you are reasonably certain you will be available over the course of the seven days of the nomination. Any absence of more than a day from Wikipedia during the nomination period may have negative effects on the RfA.
  • Be careful to not respond to every comment made on your RfA, especially negative comments. Reactions by nominees tend to snowball into negative voting patterns. Answer questions where appropriate, but keep in mind that it may be beneficial to let the RfA evolve on its own.
  • If your RfA fails, do not take it personally. If I have nominated you, it is doubtful that you would as my review of your interactions with other users indicates maturity on your part if I have accepted you. Nevertheless, do not allow a failed RfA to color your outlook on Wikipedia. The very best of editors can make poor admins. The two have little relation to each other, and all the moreso for their respective value to the project. If your RfA fails, take the comments made in the RfA constructively whether you want to run for admin in the future again or not. Improve yourself by absorbing the lessons from the RfA.
  • Similar to the previous recommendation, if your RfA passes, take the comments made on the RfA page as lessons on how you could improve your contributions to the project.
  • Understand that, assuming your RfA passes, your role as a contributor to Wikipedia may change. You may find yourself becoming less involved in direct article creation/improvement and more involved in meta tasks, such as dispute resolution, deletion work, vandal fighting/education, and the like. These sorts of contributions are every bit as important to Wikipedia as direct article work. There's no guarantee your contributions will drift in this direction, but it may happen. There's no word of caution here; just be aware of this phenomena.
  • If you have any questions regarding adminship, do not hesitate to ask me. I will be very happy to help you in any way that I can.

[edit] Editors I have nominated

  • User:RobyWayne (RfA) - Nominated 7 October 2005. Promoted 18 October 2005. Family emergency postponed his acceptance until 10 October 2005. Nominee made error of voting for himself, resulting in quick oppose vote from User:Andrevan. I suggested he undo his self vote [4]. Nomination then proceeded well. He was promoted 18 October 2005 by User:UninvitedCompany, though User:Pakaran felt that it was a close call RfA. I felt this was improper, in that at time of expected close it was 82.6% in favor using Support/(Support+Oppose). Pakaran counted neutral votes as oppose votes to claim it was a close call RfA. I believe this was improper, and have begun an investigation in to the matter. My preliminary question in the investigation yielded this diff which I thought was very well thought out and could serve as a future basis for a guideline for bureaucrats. Later, Pakaran indicated that promoting was the right decision. See [5]. Nomination closed at 20-4-3.
  • User:Edcolins (RfA) - Nominated 21 October 2005. Promoted 28 October 2005. After exhaustive study of contributions and the editor providing answers to some questions I had, I've decided to nominate this editor effective 21 October 2005. Nomination closed at 27-1-0.
  • User:Cryptic (RfA) - Created nomination 4 November 2005; and accepted later that day. Promoted 12 November 2005. Nomination had 4 support votes before it was even posted to WP:RFA. Nomination closed at 73-1-0. Update: This editor vanished from the project 20 March 2006, apparently due to User:Mistress Selina Kyle being unblocked.
  • User:Gurubrahma (RfA) - Created nomination 29 November 2005 and shortly thereafter accepted. Promoted 6 December 2005 First editor to request that I nominate them, and was careful in reviewing my standards and guidelines on this page prior to making the request. I've been very impressed by this editor. Nomination closed at 50-0-0.
  • User:Malo (RfA) - Created nomination 13 December 2005, and accepted in the wee hours of 14 December 2005 (by UTC). Promoted 21 December 2005 Second editor to request that I nominate them. I was rather pleased that my only concern regarding him (some minor incivility) was addressed in his response to question #3 in the RfA. Probably the most aggressive vandal fighter I've nominated yet. Nomination closed at 61-0-0.
  • User:Chairboy (RfA) - Created nomination 19 January 2006, and it went live 20 January 2006. Promoted 27 January 2006. Third editor to request I nominate them. By far, this editor is the best speedy deletion candidate hound I've nominated. Nomination closed at 79-0-0.
  • User:Cactus.man (RfA) - Created nomination 7 March 2006. Nomination accepted 9 March 2006. Promoted 16 March 2006. This editor was extremely patient waiting two months for me to finally do the RfA review. Nomination closed at 80-1-1.
  • User:Thatcher131 {RfA) - Created nomination 14 September 2006. Nomination accepted same day. Promoted 22 September 2006. This RfA hid a speed bump fairly early on, with one editor finding a single diff that could be perceived in a couple different ways. This ended up being the most support nomination I've ever made to date, while also being the most opposed. Nomination closed at 120-23-7.

[edit] Editors I considered under my guidelines but have not nominated

  • User:OwenBlacker - Casual review of contributions, looks solid. At time of review, 4715 edits and more than a year on the project. Use of edit summaries 94%. However, participation over the last 90 days has been averaging at 5.5 edits per day. Too low for me. Plus, there are multiple gaps in participation over the last several months. May reconsider editor at later date; for now, will not nominate. Last updated 28 October 2005
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/r/User%7EDurin_My_guidelines_for_admin_nomination_ba7b.html"