Wikipedia:Adminship survey/L

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] (35/06/18/28/19/15/13/05/03/19) What are your major factors in support/opposing a RfA candidate?

  • You may support more than one option.
Comment: This list appears to be sorted according to importance in the view of the writer. May I suggest a more objective sort order would be alphabetical. --Ideogram 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trust

  1. of course the main one. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Well, duh. This is the criteria I use; everything else stems from "Do I trust this person to be an admin?" -Amarkov moo! 15:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. No more, no less. Nothing else. Do I trust them to use tools or not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yup. My #1. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I normally will only comment if I've seen or heard of the candidate. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. But the other factors are what determine if I trust... GRBerry 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Of course. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Obviously, and most importantly. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Looks like everyone pretty much agrees on this as a major factor, and so do I.The capability for messing things up by a single admin is so great, and the methods of guarding against this so sparse, that this must be the primary consideration. DGG 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Paramount. I suspect that if trust weren't an issue, we really wouldn't need the RfA process. Agent 86 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Primary criteria, but not something that can usefully be debated. A bureaucrat can only go by a vote count or their gut instinct. —Dgiest c 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Most important and why I don't participate in stranger's RFAs.--BirgitteSB 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Extremely important. GracenotesT § 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. The most important of the lot. Yuser31415 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. As GRBerry says, the other factors are what I use to estimate trust. Αργυριου (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Sure. {Slash-|-Talk} 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. What I ask myself is If I were involved in a dispute, would I want this person making the calls? DurovaCharge! 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Trust is the number one criteria. Without this, nothing else matters. —Doug Bell talk 02:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Yes, yes, yes. Daniel.Bryant 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Obviously. Of course, trust is developed in the course doing the stuff listed below. Opabinia regalis 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. If I don't trust a candidate, I can't support them. ChazBeckett 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. This has always been my barometer when it comes to voting, I cannot support a candidate I do not trust to put the project ahead of their own concerns. Edit counts mean nothing, I know people with over 30000 edits I wouldn't trust with the admin tools. Rje 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Obviously... Grandmasterka 08:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. This is my main one which is influenced by other factors. James086Talk 10:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. DUH Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)11:25, Friday, 23 February '07
  27. Yes, but all the other factors (e.g. participation in process, lack of offense) assert this one. Any trusted adminship candidate would also be trusted admin. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Per Jorcoga. Titoxd(?!?) 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Primarily. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Yes, this is very important. Bucketsofg 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Definately. The RfA is all about showing the communiity that they can trust you. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. The only criterion I apply. Grace Note 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. The most important by far. Stefan 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. A crucial factor, but not the only one for me. --210physicq (c) 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Yes, but it's not always easy to judge fairly, and I know I've got it wrong in the past. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Tony Sidaway 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC) The main criterion.
  37. Of course. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall editcount

  1. All depends on the quality of the edits and there's a minor issue about admins on other language wikipedias with low english edit counts. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Depends on many factors. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. I don't mind comments on edit count, as long as there is a reasoned analysis provided as to why the edit count is relevant to the determination of the outcome of any particular nominee. Agent 86 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. It's not that high edit count is a reason to support, but that very low edit count is a reason to (cautiously, cautiously!) oppose. GracenotesT § 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Low edit count is a good reason to oppose, as it shows lack of experience (though may be overridden by other factors). Αργυριου (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Least of all, but it is a good way to indicate obviously unsuitable nominations. For me it is a disqualifier and not a qualifier. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainspace editing

  1. See above re. "all-rounders"--Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. The worst administrators, historically, have been the ones who have little in the way of mainspace editorial contributions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. We're here to build an encyclopedia. An editor who doesn't have mainspace edits clearly doesn't get that and shouldn't be given any tools. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mainspace should be the user's biggest area, followed by talk pages. People shouldn't be here just to become admins. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Needs to be able to write articles before administering article writers. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. There needs to be some degree of participation in this area, given the overall purpose of the project. Agent 86 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. If someone is interested in fighting vandals, doesn't that make them an ideal admin candidate? Obviously they should be familiar with the content policies in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, but I fail to see how an interest in admin-like activities makes a for a poor admin candidate. —Dgiest c 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Someone who does not contribute (which is subtly different from mainspace edits) will not be able to convince me that they will be sympathetic to the difficulties which contributors face. Contributions could be images, or possibly even limited to leaving info on article talk pages for other editors to evaluate, but should be additions to the encyclopedia, not just deletions. A dedicated vandal-fighter needs bot-user permission, not admin privileges. Αργυριου (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Some participation in mainspace is needed. Not a percentage, and not necessarily article writing either, though vandal fighting doesn't count. -Amarkov moo! 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Not a hard requirement, but this definitely factors in. Without this, there needs to be some other good reason for the tools than simply vandal fighting and a desire to close XfD discussions. —Doug Bell talk 02:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. See my comments on the other page (prior to L - not sure which) on why I like mainspace editing in a RfA candidate. Daniel.Bryant 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. With a few specialized exceptions, I've come to see mainspace editing as a precondition to productive adminship. Engagement with content rather than with people' provides a defense against burnout, minimizes wikipolitical strife, and puts someone in the right frame of mind for making administrative decisions about content. We don't need 'general managers', and to be honest I don't trust those who are here explicitly for that purpose. Opabinia regalis 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Article writing is needed to understand the content policies Jaranda wat's sup 22:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. See all rounders above. Despite the many other reasons I oppose, this is one of my main ones. Civilty & experience as well as edit counting are also high on the scales... Spawn Man 02:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. A little bit; I don't think a user needs an FA, or even a GA, but... something is nice. Not critical, but factors in. Titoxd(?!?) 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. I put this only a little bit above edit count. A user must demonstrate familiarity with article building and possess. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. We are here to write an encyclopedia and administrators should be able to do just that. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. In a broad sense. Articles are best, and it really isn't hard to write decent stubs. However, copyediting, expanding, categorising, creating templates, and finding images, are all essential. Editors who can create good images from scratch are rare beasts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

  1. It's more about to whom and under what circumstances the candidate may have been uncivil - if they've told the devil-troll to "stuff it" in a moment of weakness I've got no problem, if they're launching tirades against established users, then this is.--Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I expect it all the time really, it's only decent manners. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. The most significant criteria. MLA 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Most important. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. To a minor extent; I don't mind incivility in some cases (i.e., in the face of obvious trolling, I can forgive angry responses rather easily; doing the same to a newbie is quite bad.) Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. depends on extent-- if they seem to be learning to be civil. Not that an uncivil admin will necessarily do a bad job, but she/he's much more likely to cause resentment. DGG 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Very important. Losing one's cool is acceptable when it is followed by an apology. Admins should set the tone. No matter how great an admin is when they are uncivl they encourage uncivil responses and incivilty will spread wherever they go. Even trolls should be handled with civilty because you never know when you have misjudged someone or met them on their worst day. It is better to come across as patronizing than incivil.--BirgitteSB 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Definitely, definitely. Uncivil admins are far more likely to act rashly under stress, even if they apologize afterward. Furthermore, admins are often looked up to as role models. Yuser31415 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. I will definitely rue the day when Morton Devonshire becomes admin. {Slash-|-Talk} 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Lack of civility = lack of my trust, though my lack of civility bar is set higher (lower?) than many. Αργυριου (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Civility is needed, but there are many much more important things. -Amarkov moo! 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Civility is the number three criteria after trust (#1) and judgement (#2). Basically, the minimum threshold is to be acceptable in these three criteria. —Doug Bell talk 02:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. See my comment at /K. Daniel.Bryant 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. For me this is basic. Rude admins reflect badly on the project and cause too much trouble even when acting in good faith. Eluchil404 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Not as concerned as most. Persistent rudeness should not be tolerated, but cranky replies to trolls are completely forgivable. It happens too often around here that 'he told me something I didn't want to hear' gets transmuted into 'he's a big meanie and he was uncivil to me!' Opabinia regalis 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Absolutely. Incivility always makes a situation worse and reflects poorly on the project. ChazBeckett 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. This is heavily intwined with "trust" to me. It doesn't pertain to the direct use of the admin tools (usually) but it is nonetheless extremely important for a wide variety of reasons. Grandmasterka 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Very important in my opinion. Admins get a lot of crap and if someone can't handle it, I don't think they're fit to be an admin. If someone was in-civil 6 months ago and without any signs since that's fine though, they probably learned since then. James086Talk 10:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. This is necessary. Everybody has bad days, so that can be understood if it's isolated, but without civility, there should be no buttons, and they should be taken away if civility goes away. Just Heditor review 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Definitely necessary. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)11:25, Friday, 23 February '07
  21. Litmus test. Titoxd(?!?) 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. I think this is very important. It is my belief that we should even treat vandals with dignity even as we are blocking them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. I would prefer frank incivility to smug autocratic ignorance. Civility is important in a conflict between equals, but humility (or at least absence of power-fixation and sadism) and competence are more important where one party wields all power. Avoid authoritarian personality. -ac
  24. Very important. Civility can sometimes diffuse difficult situations; incivility always inflames. Bucketsofg 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Since admins deal with disputs, they should not be the sort that enflames disputes. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Second most important, but Trust is much more important. Stefan 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Extremely important. An editor can be trusted, but must be trusted to be civil in discussion, not to be trusted to insult anyone that disagrees with him/her. --210physicq (c) 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Fairly important, but my expectations are on the low side. So long as the editor understands that we have standards, and tries to meet them, that'll usually do me. Unrepentant and persistently incivil editors who don't get it won't do, and neither will editors who make a drama out of others' incivility. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Tony Sidaway 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Should calmly but firmly deal with some of the most abusive people on Wikipedia.
  30. Of course, and with strong emphasis on exact words and their subtle differences. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Participation in process

  1. Proving you can make a decision and back it up with reasoned arguments should be a core skill really. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. As above, admins who have no experience backing up a policy decision are going to make baad admins. -Amarkov moo! 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. If you haven't seen it from the frontline, then you'll be hopeless behind the desk. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. Potential admins need to show that they are capable and will understand what they are doing. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Always a good thing, but I don't limit this to XFD; I just look for work in community areas. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. If there is no participation in process, how can we properly assess the candidate? Part of determining trust is knowing that a candidate displays past behaviour that supports a conclusion that he or she will not only use the tools without malace, but use them in a manner that is consistent with policy and practice. Agent 86 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. since process is what they will be doing, they should show they understand it and use it reasonably. But not necessarily all aspects of process--not every admin is expected to do everything. But if they are not interested in process, they are primarily interested in prestige, and that should not be an acceptable motivation.DGG 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Important to an admin's daily activities. GracenotesT § 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Important. A candidate who can't be bothered to participate in the process without admin tools does not demonstrate a desire for, much less a need for, admin tools. Αργυριου (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Generally has to have enough participation so that their judgement can be assessed. —Doug Bell talk 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Not evey process, but they need to show that they can effectively use the tools. Eluchil404 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Some experience is obviously good, but since no one can know the administrative side of the process until they're in that role, it's not that big a deal. I have very low standards for tool usage; someone who is completely trustworthy but just wants to make the occasional obstructed page move is fine by me. Opabinia regalis 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. At least a little... This is a large part of what being an admin is, is it not? Grandmasterka 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Not mass participation so much as they have demonstrated that they understand the policies that apply to that specific area. For example if they want to speedy delete, they shouldn't have loads of (still existing cause they weren't deleted) edits adding speedy tags. James086Talk 10:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. YEs, that's what adminship is all about. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)11:25, Friday, 23 February '07
  17. This, or an indication that the user can learn the process, and not just ram through it. WP:IAR when misused, is evil. Titoxd(?!?) 23:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Fairly important. Lack of knowledge can be dangerous here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Participation in process suggests that the user knows policy and thus gives a reason to support him/her. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    (general comment, not on the Captain's comment) To me, process participation is very far down the list. A user may eventually join process issues, but forcing this on candidates favours wikilawyering patterns. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of offense (e.g. 3RR)

  1. Again its all about context--Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Depends when and what about. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. When and what. During an ArbComm case I won't support even a saint. After a dispute is over, I'll look at what they did in the dispute. GRBerry 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Only as part of civility. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. To a minor extent; one 3RR a while back doesn't bother me, but three in the last month does. All about context. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm willing to forgive and forget long-ago offenses. If the prospective admin violated 3RR yesterday, then oppose, obviously. Yuser31415 22:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. It depends on how long ago it was and how they responded to the offense being pointed out to them. Eluchil404 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Like everyone says, depends on the context. Obviously. Opabinia regalis 06:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. As everyone has pointed out, it's all about context. ChazBeckett 14:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Context, and the length of time since the last alleged transgression. Grandmasterka 09:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. As above, it depends a lot on when and what sort of offense or controversy, but yes if there is a recent offense I am less likely to support. James086Talk 10:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Yes, it depends. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)11:25, Friday, 23 February '07
  13. I don't believe in scarlet letters and I believe that people can change their behavior, but recent blocks/offenses can indicate that someone isn't ready for the mop. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. You do not want the police to break laws. Why would you want admins to be blocked recently? Captain panda In vino veritas 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Depends on the particulars of the offense, but unless the block was by an admin known for using blocks to win content battles, or by an admin I have no respect for, almost any block is an automatic disqualification. Αργυριου (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    (comment, I don't want it to appear as a vote) Totally depends on the context. Many minor incivilities may be much worse than one big mistake. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Familiarity of candidate

  1. Pretty high - the real problem with RFA is the amount of time required to fully research a candidates contribution history - if you don't know the candidate then it's made doubly hard.--Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. To a point. It isn't a major one, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. I must have heard of them to comment, in general. I often give advice to candidates that are doomed to fail from the start; obviously I don't know these users. --Majorly (o rly?) 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. If I don't already know them, I don't have the time to research whether they would make a good admin, so probably won't opine. GRBerry 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. It helps if I know them. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I usually only comment if I know them, or if there is some glaringly obvious reason to oppose. —Dgiest c 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. I won't comment without this--BirgitteSB 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. This is of little importance to me. Given the number of editors we can't be familiar with everyone. If I comment on someone I haven't heard of before, it's because something in the nomination caught my eye and roused my curiousity about the nominee. I won't comment on a nomination of someone I hadn't heard of without carrying out a careful review of the nomination comment, the "support" and "oppose" comments, the nominee's user, talk and contribution pages, and other sources of info. Agent 86 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per Agent86. Αργυριου (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. I rarely vote on candidates I am not familiar with and never oppose for this reason but am willing to support a qualified candidate based on RfA cliche #1. Eluchil404 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Not a deal-killer, but I gotta look into someone's past before I can support. Thats why i don't often participate in RFAs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Often it helps. Sometimes it doesn't. Bucketsofg 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Of course, but only since that is the best way of knowing the candidate has my trust and is civil, would never oppose due to not knowing the candidate. Stefan 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Not to me, but to many voters this is the single most important point. I vote here on behalf of those, because their occasional participation makes it unlikely they will vote/comment here. Also, nothing will revert that behaviour, and changes to the RfA process must take the fact of sympathy voting into consideration. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

  1. Only if there's an issue regarding misleading edit summaries. Αργυριου (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. To a point; I don't care if someone doesn't provide a summary when responding on a talk page, or the like. -Amarkov moo! 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. To a small degree... Thought-out deletion and blocking summaries are helpful, and they stem, in part, from this. No prejudice against using your browser's autofill function when a good summary applies to a lot of similar cases. :-) Grandmasterka 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Only insofar as much as I wouldn't support someone who doesn't make it a habit. 100% isn't required... not even 80%... but it's really just common etiquette to let people know what your doing and it starts becoming very important when you use the admin tools. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. I consider it to be important to be able to what see the editor did in his/her edit by looking at the summary. Also, I believe that it shows responsibility and good knowledge of process to have a high edit summary usage. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation ability

(Late addition, --Kim Bruning 13:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

  1. Kim Bruning 13:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Somewhat. An admin should be able to not inflame disputes, but I'm not sure how much they need to be able to meditate. -Amarkov moo! 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'm not sure I should be even saying this, since I never participate in RFA and I do a lot of work for MedCab so am probably biased, but I do think mediation experience is very important for an admin. The ability to calm people down and resolve disputes is vastly more important than edit count, in my opinion. --Ideogram 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. Maturity--Mcginnly | Natter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sanity. Proto ► 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, also, it being close. If it's 150-0, then there's no point to just adding another name to the list. Similarly, if it's 4-26, what is the point of opposing? None. Proto ► 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Reasoning. If they habitually explain their opinions with sound reasoning, and change those opinions when others offer better reasoning, they are trustworthy. If they don't, in the long run they will be trouble. GRBerry 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Trivial oppose votes that need to be countered. Kusma (討論) 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Reasoning per GRBerry. What other people wrote in the RFA, to support or oppose. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per GRBerry and Kusma. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Logic, reasoning. Given a set of circumstances and required action, can they be expected to reach a sane, sound, conclusion, or will they be a wildcard? GracenotesT § 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Calmness and thoughtfulness. Yuser31415 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. It really depends. As a general rule, I don't vote on RFAs unless I have a for-sure oppose/support opinion on the user. However, any of the above can stand out as a criteria for supporting or opposing. Of course I'll oppose a user with only 20 edits, and of course I'll oppose a user who's consistantly incivil. However, I do think that supporting just because of a high edit count, or opposing just because the user is forgetful with edit summaries shows a lack of perspective at the general picture of them as a potential admin. ^demon[omg plz] 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Logic. If you consistently make stupid decisions, then you will not make a good admin, no matter what other qualities you may have. -Amarkov moo! 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Maturity and judgement. Usually, good judgement indicates maturity, so these kinda go together. —Doug Bell talk 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Longjevity and judgement. Daniel.Bryant 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Time on the project is more important than edit count to me, but my standards are still lower than most. I would also oppose if I felt a candidate badly misunderstood policy. Eluchil404 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. I strongly support content-specialized admins; knowledge of a particular subject area (and knowledge of the editing climate at key articles in that area) is a major advantage in preventing sneaky vandalism and the introduction of misinformation. Also, maturity and ability to communicate effectively in writing. (I'm consistently amazed at how many people who spent their leisure time at an online encyclopedia project fail this latter test.) Opabinia regalis 06:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Communication. I would want an RC Patroller to warn the vandals, a speedy tagger to notify the author etc. Discussion is important and being able to get your point across without tone, body language or an instant reply can prevent a lot of conflict. James086Talk 10:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Body language. If they're hitting on me, then I support. (Before I get yelled at – read: Sense of humor. Someone who takes things too seriously will burn out.) Titoxd(?!?) 00:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Hay baby... -wink wink- ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Maturity... and I don't mean age either. And I don't mean someone who can't laugh. I mean someone who knows when to. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Personality. Unfortunately, the type to desire adminship is usually the precise opposite of the correct type, but such is power. -ac
  19. It's only a series of tubes, not the real world. If you want to play the tragic hero(ine), join an amateur dramatic society. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Tony Sidaway 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Sanity.
  21. Aspects I take into consideration include: wide-spread interests (esp. in mainspace), overall maturity, sense of humour, being friendly and helpful, being able to admit mistakes or stupidities, only citing policy in capital letters as a last resort. No prominent display of religious or political (other than nation) affiliations! And, last but not least, I want anyone to display intellectual honesty. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdminship_survey_L_4c50.html"