Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/E-K
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump. |
- As many listings here are outdated, this list may no longer be an accuracte representation of the likely consensus to be found during future Requests for Adminship.
This page is for Wikipedians to disclose their own standards to be met for them to approve of a request on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you are interested in the statistical results as related to such standards, please see Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/Statistics. Note that this page is not official policy on minimum requirements for adminship; it merely sets out the individual opinion of various users. There are currently NO requirements as to the number of edits or length of service required of an editor to become an administrator.
Feel free to add your minimum standards to this table; try to keep the table alphabetized by username. This page is for Wikipedians whose usernames start with E-K.
A through D • E through K • L through O • P through S • T through Z • ALL (VERY LARGE)
Contents |
[edit] E
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elkman - (talk) | Around 2000 edits, but can be flexible | At least 3 months | Generally, I'm looking for people who can be reasonable in their interactions with other users. I also think administrators should view their role as a technical role, not as a political role, although administrative decisions tend to force others into political disagreements from time to time. Someone who engages in a lot of controversy and drama wouldn't make a good admin. (For examples, see the pedophilia userbox wheel war that happened back in February.) Someone who's familiar in WP:AFD and WP:RFA would also get my attention. |
| Eluchil404 | 500 edits total with at least 100 in Wikispace | 1 to 2 months | I look for users who have demonstrated a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and are involved in housekeeping chores already. One can do a lot of admin type chores without having an official mop. |
| Essexmutant | 2000+ edits (min. 10% of edits to be on Talk pages or Wikispace) | minimum 3 months | I look for potential administrators to come across as mature, in order to set a good example to the community. Edit summaries are very important. (NB: Self-nominations make no difference to my opinions.) |
| Evan Robidoux | 1,000+ (2,000+ for self-nomination), with a good amount of edits in the main (article) namespace. | Indefinite, depends on quality of edits. |
|
[edit] F
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me | 1,000+ Quality edits | 1 year | see User:False Prophet/Rfa criteria |
| Firsfron | 2000 edits a minimum | Minimum 3 months experience (exceptions can be made) | Must be actually willing to fight vandalism, since these are the tools with which s/he will be issued. I recently had to change one vote from support to neutral because the Admin candidate did not seem at all interested in checking for vandalism. The guy below me says it best: "Editors who want to revert vandalism would make better use of sysop tools than those who do nothing but write great articles." |
| Folksong | 300 edits, with a majority being original content, vandalism reverting or simply, high-quality edits | 3+ months | My only requirements for supporting an admin candidate are the quality of their edits, their desire to revert and delete vandalism, and most of all a desire to uphold Wikipedia standards and maintain a structure of civility and neutrality. |
| Frenchman113 (talk) | Enough (around 300-500) | Active for 3 months | I don't usually vote on these, but all I require is a good rationale for seeking adminship and some basic experience with the workings of wikipedia. A user can have a million edits and a thousand featured articles, but I'll still oppose him/her if they don't give a good reason for requesting adminship. |
| Friday | Enough (at least 500-1000 may be a decent rule of thumb, but editcountitis is silly.) | Enough (at least 2-3 months may be a decent rule of thumb, but behavior is more important than time.) | Temperament, level-headedness, and a willingness to admit mistakes are key. See User:Friday/admin for more. |
[edit] G
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Eisenhower | 100+ | Enough monthes to get aquantied with Wikipedia | I think an admin should have the nessary power to fight vandals. He or she should also joined at least 10 projects. Also he/she should be very helpful to new users. I think that the quality of admin does not depend on how many awards he or she or how many messages he has sent or has on his talk page. I think that the quality of a Wikipedian depends on how hard the user works on this encyclopedia. That is just my opinion. |
| G.He | 1000+ edits in all with 600+ in the Main Namespace and 150+ in the Wikipedia Namespace** (80%+ Major Edit Summary Usage in the last 150 Edits)** (65%+ Minor Edit Summary Usage in the last 150 Edits)** |
3+ Weeks** and showing signs for continued activeness (Wikibreak(s) Excepted) | Candidate must kind, civil, and helpful, and must not have any history of vandalism (I may reconsider if the vandalism took place in the first 20 edits, but generally not after (Unless very good reason and explanation is given. Either way, it would still affect the record.)). He/she must also show good intentions and contributions towards the project. This may be through articles, vandalism patrol, or any other forms that would benefit the community. Interactions with other users and an active email account are also an essential elements. It's okay if the candidate made mistakes in the past--we all make mistakes--as long as he/she realises the mistake and correct it. :) Unlike some other users, I will not be using the 1FA standard in RfAs. I respect the views of the users who do use it, for featured articles are important, and they reflect the best works on Wikipedia. However, 1FA is, in no way, an accurate benchmark or standard of a good editor, and in a way, it can be quite insulting to say that someone is not a "real" editor. But if the candidate has worked on a featured article, there's no doubt that that will definitely benefit their RfA.[1] Other possible requirement(s) (This list may be incomplete):
|
| Goldom | The more the better | See box to the left | I don't really follow any set guidelines. I previously said here 1500+ edits, 6+ months, but found I never really stuck to that. If you understand policy, make good edits, answer the questions well, and participate in ways that you would benefit from admin tools, I will probably support you. Particular things I will almost certainly oppose for are breaches of civility (including but not limited to personal attacks), and being hardheadeded. (I don't think a user who refuses to admit they've made a mistake would make a good admin). |
| Grandmasterka | Roughly 2500 edits, including 1000+ article edits, 500+ WP-space edits, and 350+ all talk edits | 3 months | My standards are relatively quite complex; see my criteria. I seem to give more weight to WP-space edits than others. |
| Grand Slam 7 | 600 edits, including 300 to articles and 50 WP-space | 4 months, less ok if nominee is a productive, good editor | I think adminship is not a huge deal, but I like to see good edits and no history of vandalism unless it is clear nominee has reformed. |
| Gren | Depends | Preferably 6 months+ | Contact of the voter with the nominee is very important. It allows one to see the nominees conduct before looking at longevity and edit counts which are secondary and tertiary considerances. If contact with a user has been positive then try to view some of their other edits. Knowing the user matters a lot to how you evaluate the edit count. If they are a creator of articles then maybe 500 is a ton and shows that they can resolve disputes about their own content. If they have 9000 it may mean they just do RC patrol a lot. One must evaluate based on this. |
| Grutness | preferably 1200+ edits, 1000+ of them in article space, including large, well-written contributions to several articles | minimum 3 months | Edits should be spread through several namespaces, showing involvement with Wiki community and the internal workings of Wikipedia. User talk page should provide evidence of positive interaction and rapport with other users. Many other features are taken into account, though not vital (bilingualism is a plus but is not essential, for example) |
| GTBacchus | around 1000 or 2000.... or 5000. Or 500. | Meh | Convince me you understand what's going on and know how to get along with other people. Adminship isn't a big deal, but I still don't agree with giving it to assholes. |
[edit] H
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haham hanuka | 1000+ edits [1] | minimum 5 months | |
| Haider | More than three months | I just want to be sincere with wikipedia by giving some support esp about Pashtuns. I am a regular visitor of this site and really appreciate it even advised my friends to visit and explore . | |
| Harro5 | 1000 edits | Enough to grasp Wikipedia policy. | Must be involved in Wikispace activities (eg. VfD, RC patrol, peer review), and do good work there. |
| Haza-w | Several hundred edits (800+) is plenty. 1500+ for self-nominees. | Long enough to have established xemself as trustworthy. | Must have shown xemself to be a worthy force in countering vandalism and showing knowledge of and adhering to the five pillars. SysOp rights should not be given lightly, but not be denied to those in whose hands good will be done. |
| HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) |
A thousand good edits is usually enough. More if you've got loads of minor edits, less if you've done loads of substantial edits. | No limit. | Your talk and contributions pages need to show a history of good edits to encylopedic articles and civil edits to talk pages. You need to have taken part in some of xFD, RfA, stub or category sorting, vandal fighting, etc. You need to have demonstrated that you have a good grasp of policy, and you match WP:GRFA#What_RfA_contributors_look_for. |
| Hipocrite - «Talk» | No standard | No limit. | I only support editors that I am reasonably confident will not abuse the tools. I oppose all editors who I have reasonable doubt over tool abuse. I am neutral on all other editors I interact with regularly. |
[edit] I
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idont Havaname | Several hundred edits each in several namespaces, and over 1000 total (2000+ is better). | Case by case, but long enough to know our policies well and adhere to them, especially NPOV, civility, and no personal attacks. | The nominee should be approachable, pleasant to deal with, and familiar with / abiding by our policies. They should use edit summaries often and should make them understandable to newer editors (this ties into approachability). I prefer that they not delete comments which are not vandalism from their Talk page. Additionally, I prefer if they are nominated by an experienced editor who's well-known in the Wikipedia community; though I don't see self-nomination as a reason to oppose (except in some cases of multiple self-noms). My user page also has information about my admin criteria and lists the nominees that I have supported. |
| Ifnord | 2000 (Deleted edits count) | Six months | Well thought out answers to questions are bonus. Having seen you around AfD and giving logical rationales for voting. Even if I disagree? Especially if I disagree! =) As long as civility and assuming good faith are the first tools in your tool box, my vote is yours - though I tend to only vote on users I have interacted with/seen/noticed or have real problems with their nomination. |
| Inter | 1000+ | 3-6 months | See Inter/Admin for an explanation on why I almost never vote. |
[edit] J
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jdavidb | 1400+ | 1 year | Time on Wikipedia is more important to me as an admin criterion than it is to most other Wikipedians. It is also more important to me than edit counts. But more important than both is a demonstrated commitment to both NPOV and consensus. Potential admins should be the kind of people who believe that NPOV and consensus can build a great encyclopedia. |
| Jahiegel | No minimum | No minimum | To my mind, the only relevant question is whether a user's becoming an admin is more likely to benefit than to harm the project; the questions I sometimes consider in the disposing of the metaquestion are at my RfA standards page, and my views on adminship generally are at my views on Wikipedia page. |
| Jamyskis | At least around 1000, more if the user hasn't made many "useful" contributions or has been known to violate rules in the past. | At least 3 months, 2 of them squeaky clean with no blocks or warnings. | I don't think an admin needs to be a particularly good article writer. We have many admins here whose first language is not English. However, the responsibilities and powers afforded to admin dictate that he/she be able to resolve disputes effectively, follow Wikipedia policy, but be flexible when implementation of WP:IAR would be both in the interests of improving Wikipedia and considering consensus. |
| Jaranda | 250+ Wikipedia Namespace Edits. 100+ Talk space Edits 750 Overall any less Oppose or Neutral | 2 months | Must have plenty of Wiki namespace edits for me in becoming a adminship. Must be Civil and must not have no more. Must have no glimpse of vandalism in the last 3 months nor any severe conflect. Must be involed in both NP and RC patrol. |
| jguk | 0 | 0 | My criterion is that "the candidate must have helped get at least one article up to featured article status". To achieve this means that the candidate will have demonstrated many of the qualities most desirable in an admin. I do have a "sense test override" if a candidate meeting this criterion appears unsuitable for other reasons. For more information see: User:Jguk/admin criterion. |
| JHMM13 (T - C) | ~1,500+ good contributions since any minor infractions (vandalism, attacks, rudeness, biting newbies etc.) have happened | 1.5 - 3+ active months | One of the biggest things I look for is a candidate who does more than just going around reverting vandalism. In the absence of knowing every little detail about Wikipedia policy, you should at least be a vandal-hunter/AfD hound/user talk hound, so you know how to moderate or suppress a conflict in the proper circumstances. |
| JIP | 500 to 700 edits minimum, preferably spread out across several namespaces | 3 months | The candidate should already be well familiar with what Wikipedia is and what is accepted for articles and what isn't. He/she should preferably be active on WP:AFD, either nominating articles, commenting on other nominations, or both. Having been involved in an edit war is no problem, but blatant personal insults to others is a big no-no. |
| John Reid | 1000+ (with good namespace balance) | 3+ mo | Numbers tell only half the story. I can and will grind several axes on RfA:
Since keeping cool, especially under provocation, is essential, any candidate who discusses his pending RfA on my talk page or responds to a question here defensively will get my downcheck. If you look like you really need adminship I'm inclined to oppose. Sorry; but this is not for you; it's for the project. I will not endorse any RfA unless the editor has been blocked at least once. If you've been blocked often in a short time, well, probably you don't get my support either. Do not go out and do something stupid just to qualify for me; I want to see a stupidly imposed block not one stupidly sought-for. If you've never been blocked, you may be a really nice person but not admin material. Admins are not here to be really nice to other people; they are here to close the door on editors, edits, and pages. If you are a really nice person, I suggest you take on some mediation responsibilities. You should not have your finger on the big red button until you've felt the other end of it. |
| Johntex | 2000+ (including 1,000+ to Article space and 500+ outside the Article space) | 9 months or more (preferably a year) | Should: have consistent (80%+) use of edit summaries, established e-mail, abide by WP:CIVIL, has some experience with vandal fighting and some participation in policy discussion or Meta, demonstratably learned from any major mistakes or altercations. Should not: be within 60 days of any major disciplinary problem. |
| Jondel | 700+ substantive contributions | 6 months | -To Ads and future ads and wannabees, please focus on fun and growth. Who wants to bee here if there are tooooo many strict rules?
To present and future administrators please, 2) 3 Cheers for the Policeman! With some wannabees, you can almost feel abuse fo adminstrative powers or disasters about to happen. |
| Jusjih (talk) | 2000 edits but not absolute | 6 months but not absolute | I have seen a very persuasive administrator deleting too many pages without leaving any reasons at Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikisource where I am also an administrator (there but not here). This is why I cannot support candidates who often fail to provide edit summaries. Who knows if they will fail to explain the reasons to delete pages. All candidates for adminship should always allow emails from others in case they, after becoming administrators, block someone. In addition to having user pages, administrators should always explain the reasons to delete pages, or they will bite new comers. Signatures should not have images. |
| Jwrosenzweig (talk) | 500+ quality edits (preferably 750+) | 3 months | A user with less than 750 edits and less than 4 months' service needs to be notably well-tempered and suited to the role of admin. Users above 750 and 4 months normally need to have merely avoided controversy and shown a reasonable level of familiarity with policy. |
| JzG (talk) | Enough mainspace edits to show that the user is here to build an encyclopaedia. | Long enough to establish how they react under stress | "This should be no big deal". I will support people I have seen around the project, who show evidence of defusing tense situations, who can give a credible reason for needing the tools, and whose behaviour leads me to believe that their commitment is to the project. I like: edit summaries, patient explanations to the clueless, people who are prepared to change their mind. I don't like: those who confuse their own bias for neutrality, brag lists. |
[edit] K
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kalathalan (talk) | 1,500+ total edits (see notes) | 3 months | See User:Kalathalan/Voting Policy for further details regarding my standards. |
| Karmafist | 2,000 normally, 1,300 if active, but neither is a set in stone standard | As long as it takes. Normally 6 months or so. | They should have a general grasp of policy, no consistent edit warring or POV pushing, and they need to respond to questions and critical comments on the RfA well. Self Nominations are a minus for me, but not a disqualifier. I vote my conscience, not on stats. Stats just are tools that are tiebreakers where it isn't "clear". |
| Kelly Martin (talk) | No specific count. Failure to use edit summaries reliably is a negative factor, however. | One week in most cases, although I might be willing to bend on this. | I actually look at the candidate's answers to the standard questions; they should tell me something about why Wikipedia will benefit from making this candidate an admin. Specifically, answers to the first question that sum up to "I want to delete things", "I want to be able to hit rollback" or "I want to be able to block people" are bad answers. An indication that the candidate understands the meaning of ignore all rules is a major positive. The candidate must not have a history of getting rolled back (except by admins who abuse the rollback tool), of being a POV warrior, or generally of being a dick. Must play well with others. IRC participation is a plus. Evidence of positive participation in conflict resolution is also a big plus. |
| Kicking222 | A fair amount (more than a few hundred) | Long enough (at least a few months) | I think it's incredibly unfair to immediately discredit someone simply because he or she only has 800 edits, or has only been editing WP for four months, or has never written a featured article (I particularly despise this third criterion). There is certainly such a thing as being far too new/inexperienced, but most people who fit that category would never even notice RfA, much less try to become an admin. If I think a user has a very good grasp of WP rules and policies, has proven themselves to be a kind and helpful user, and expresses a need for admin tools, then I am more than happy to support them. |
| Kitia My talk My contibs | More than a thousand mainspace edits. For self noms, about two thousand total edits. More would be great. And ofcource, those figures don't include vandal edits. | About four months, give or take a few weeks. | Always be civil, and always help others. Welcome users lots, and participating in wikiprojects. Always try to help others become admins, and try comforting stressed users, including fighting vandalism yet still trying to make the vandal feel welcome. Generally just be a role model. And correcting spelling would be a plus. |
| Kookykman|(t)e | No standard. | No standard. | Civility and cool in the face of the fire are my number one concern. |
A through D • E through K • L through O • P through S • T through Z • ALL (VERY LARGE)
