User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page deals with my standards for voting "Yes" in a vote for an Wikipedia Administrator. They differ a bit from the general Wiki policy on Wikipedian administrators. I see administrators as basically verified editors; people whose edits you should never need to check because you know they love Wikipedia, share its mission, and are doing what they can to fulfill its noble goal, and who would never do anything to jeopardize that. A high standard yes, but words simply have more weight coming from an administrator. (Keep in mind that this list is not hard and fast. If an editor fails one standard, but if they are more than just satisfactory on the other standards, I might still support anyway.)

[edit] Criteria

  • Experience
By this I mean that a good Admin has a thorough knowledge of the internals of Wikipedia; they can answer any outsider or new editor's question without looking up more than the specific spelling of a apposite link, say.
They also should have knowledge of Wiki markup so they are not self-handicapped; this goes double for templates.
    • >2000 edits.
This is a minimum. Perhaps your favored candidate can contribute massively in fewer edits. But probably not. I just don't think one can gain a knowledge of Wikipedia and its denizens, the social mores and policies, &etc. without that many edits. They should have been here at least 4 months as well, but that's not that important.
    • Have colloborated with other users And/Or: Engaged in an edit war of some sort.
This should not need explanation; edit wars are part and parcel of Wikipedia- if you don't know edit wars, then you are ignorant of part of Wikipedia. Social aspects of Wikipedia, yadda yadda...
  • Politics
I shan't mince words here: I do judge on politics. Some politics are just plain dangerous to hold, and someone in a relative position of trust and power should not hold them.
What's up with this one? I talk about some fairly neutral things then I go and say this essentially political and philosophical thing, which is very opinionated. Well, the over-riding ideal of Wikipedia (and the associated projects) is to make information available- the hacker and GNU ethic, essentially. If you don't support those ideals, if you think ideas can (and should!) be owned and controlled like material objects- you shouldn't be here in the first place. Go away; certainly don't try for a position of trust here.
      • Should support Free speech, with very few restrictions.
Basically part of the above. Free exchange of information is free speech.
  • Personality
The candidate can be as experienced as he pleases, and have made as many edits as Ram-man, but if his personality is lousy, they should not be voted in.
    • Rationality
Consistency. Cool under fire. Able to justify their positions, be flexible and sensible, and pick decent positions to begin with. They should not be prickly and rude/abrupt. An example: My personal experiences with Darrien would lead me to vote against him. Not due to inexperience, or politics, or because he's a bad guy or anything, but rather his personality, I believe would not allow him to be moderate and calm in disputes like an admin should be.
    • Tolerance
They should err on the side of caution in disputes and banning people. It is easy to misunderstand one another in person- how much easier online?

[edit] Why not me?

I've been asked once or twice why I haven't nominated myself for Admin- I fulfill my requirements, don't I? I have ~3200 edits ( as of 20:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)), I've been in some edit wars with anons and users alike- I've colloborated on a few articles, and created/expanded quite a few articles as well. My vandal credentials are unquestioned (just look at the Eric S. Raymond history; the last fifty edits are solely an anon vandalizing and me reverting), my politics are prefectly in line (First Admendment absolutist, adamant Free Software supporter &etc.). The Personality criteria is harder for me to objectively judge (:)), but if I'm not actually as good at any of it as I would like, they're what I try to be. The rest I'll have to leave to the eye of the beholder.

So why not?

Well, it boils down to this: I'm not sure I know the policies and templates well enough, that I'm well enough known/well-regarded, that I've been far too insular, restricting most of my edits to Star Wars and technology articles. All of that, but the biggest reason is this: it seems to me, that like the title "hacker", it's not really something you've earned until other people call you that. If someone thinks that I'm good enough to be nominated for Administrator, I'll accept. But until that happens, I shall remain a humble editor. Now that Redwolf24 has seen fit to nominate me; since my RfA has succeeded, this whole section is sorta irrelevant.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User%7EMarudubshinki_Admin_standards_805a.html"