Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/L-O
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them. " If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as 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- As many listings here are outdated, this list may no longer be an accuracte representation of the likely consensus to be found during future Requests for Adminship.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 L-O.
A through D • E through K • L through O • P through S • T through Z • ALL (VERY LARGE)
Contents |
[edit] L
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| ++Lar: t/c | (Note: It's quite conceited of me to put mine up here, since I myself don't pass (my seriously active time here is shy of 6 months)!!!! But I doubt I'll |
| Legolost | I use a thing I created called the ADmin Assessment Scale (ADAS). See my user page for details. |
| Linuxbeak | Have fun! Go out of your way to interact with the community. IRC participation, as well as belonging to Wikipedian groups, lets people know who you are. Be nice to newcomers. Participate actively in VFD, TFD, CFD, use the talk pages, create pages, edit pages, and participate in at least a few adminship votes. |
~Linuxerist  E/L/T |
Even these may not be strictly enforced. I primarily base it on my trust in the user, based on their actions, and their showing of WikiLove and Wikiquette. |
| Looper5920 | I expect a lot out of editors so I set standards that, at least for me, ensure the person is well versed in ALL aspects of the project. I prefer well rounded admins so you will not see me write "We need more vandal fighters like this." I expect maturity, patience and an intricate working knowlege of the project's rules. I do not care about your politics as long as you are willing to compromise and present all sides of an issue. Finally I am but one person and do not know everyone that is nominated since we all tend to have our own corner of the encyclopedia in which we dwell. Therefore, if a large number of users I trust give a Yes vote then I will most likely lean that way. |
| Lowellian (talk) | In general, a user should meet both my edit and time standards to get my support. I will make exceptions for cases in which I know the user's work well and am convinced the user would make a good admin. I oppose adminship for users that are missing a userpage (that is, a user with a redlinked username). |
| Lst27 (talk) | I won't support anyone that doesn't use edit summaries. RC Patrol, voting in polls, etc. would also help gain my support vote. |
[edit] M
| User | Edit Notes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MacGyverMagic (talk) | These standards aren't set in stone. I may support editors who I know to have made exceptional edits, or are very involved in various different parts of the project. Also, I find civility very important. Users who are the topic of valid RfC or arbitration cases within the last 2 months of their history will not get my support and won't get it after that unless a changed attitude is apparent. Also users who have been blocked or users who can be demonstrated to fuel revert wars without attempting civil discussion will not get my vote. | ||
| Malber (talk) | Self-noms are suspect; it demonstrates over-egerness for the tools. Someone else should hold you in high enough esteem to nominate you, even though adminship is no big deal. User's contributions must display a well rounded contribution to the project. Bannings are not an automatic disqualifier, but evidence of tendentious editing is. Must show respect for fellow editors, administrators, and process. Must demonstrate deep understanding of policy and process. 1FA is right out for the moment because I believe the FAC process to be flawed. At any rate it undermines janitorial contributions which ultimately is what being an admin is all about. I will post the following question: | ||
| Mangojuice (talk) | My main criteria is a user's motivation for seeking adminship, and their behavior. Admins should be better than free of behavior problems: they should be good examples. Despite the questions, you never know what an admin will really do once they get their mop and bucket. I want to make sure the admin goes well beyond WP:CIVIL and actively respects other users, consensus, and wikipedia's mission. As far as I'm concerned, just about anyone could use the rollback tool reasonably, but the power to block and ban has to be controlled more carefully. | ||
| Marskell (talk) | I do not find it relevant whether an RfA is a self-nom. The person does or does not have community trust and it shouldn't be considered poor form to nom yourself. I need to see Wiki space edits, at least 150, though Main space should be a plurality or majority of overall. You need to know what the deletion pages are and how they work. Lack of edit summaries is not an oppose reason in-itself but may turn a support to neutral. I'm not particularly concerned about whether you spend a lot of time on Talk pages; some articles need it, some don't. Finally, the obvious stuff: no vandalism, personal attacks etc. | ||
| Masssiveego (talk) | Nominee must be people person, hardworking, civil, trustworthy, helpful, kind, temperance, friendly, have good manners. An understanding of the english language, have a good vocabulary. Understands the workings of Wikipdia and a be good tutor. I find post counts and time on Wikipedia factor toward the above but may not necessary reflect on the person character. Last thing I want to see is another power tripping Admin that deletes the hardwork of other people for the sheer pleasure of destroying other people's work. While I understand there are limits to wikipedia bandwidth, and server hard drive space. Admin should be open minded, and flexible to variation, and have a broad understanding of what is useful everyone else, rather then what is just useful to me. I feel Admin must be intelligent, wise, clever, happy, unstressable do gooders, that has the time to be on Wikipedia, and that will take the time to both smell the roses, and keep things organized with a clear mind.
A more extensive explaination may be found at User:Masssiveego/admin |
||
| _-M |
My categories for voting on a user are fairly simple; I am fairly indifferent to the number of edits and months spent on Wikipedia. The editor must, however, show good knowledge of Wikipedia policy, be civil (not engaged in edit wars, etc.), have a good amount of social experience (talk page edits), be active for at least 3 months, and be either specialized (vandalism, categorizer) or everything-at-once. Also, answers to questions are a factor, and the nominee's patience/temper is a variable as well. | ||
| Masterjamie (talk) | Nominee should have good knowledge of policies and guidelines, also show civility and avoids destructive actions whenever possible, like revert wars. | ||
| MaxSem | The candidate must know how to write articles. Mainspace is what Wikipedia exists for, but edits to Wikipedia namespace are no less important as they help build the 'pedia. The candidate must be familiar with admin duties, so some experience of vandalwhacking and XfD discussions is a must. No recent blocks, incivility or POV-pushing. No serious misunderstandings of WP policies and principles (you won't fully understand admin duties until you've been doing them for some time anyway). | ||
| Mets501 (talk) | See my standards. | ||
| Merovingian (talk) | Nominee should have e-mail set and enabled. Also, not being a vandal/troll/sockpuppet helps, too. | ||
| Messedrocker (Talk) | They're polite, they understand the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines (especially the most important ones), they want to help Wikipedia and they must know when to do the right things. | ||
| Miborovsky (Talk) |
One Article for peer review, One Article be made FA and the RFA shall bind him. |
||
| Michael (Talk) | I like to see that a user has demonstrated a deovotion and sense of consistency to Wikipedia. I also advocate being well-rounded in terms of communication skills (user talk and Wiki talk edits), as well as the user having a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. If a user has been blocked (with reason) or done anything particularly uncivil or wrong, I will dissent. I will not support someone I think may actually have deleterious effects on the Wikipedia community. | ||
| Mike Christie (Talk) | Civility is very important -- both staying polite in a difficult exchange, and apologizing promptly for mistakes. Other than that, my main criteria are (1) do I trust you? and (2) do you know enough policy not to screw anything up while learning the rest? | ||
| Mike Halterman (talk) | Usually I only vote on candidates that I have personally noticed or interacted with. I am not a fan of piling on "Support!" votes because it's the trendy thing to do. I'm not really anal about time lengths like a few editors are...I think 2 1/2 months to three suit just fine. Also, over 1,000 edits is a good number for me. I usually don't pay attention to the introductory sentences, use of edit summaries, or the questions at the bottom. As I said, if I've noticed you and the work you've done, that should really speak for itself. I usually support by putting That's hot in lieu of Support. It means the same thing; it's just my quirk. If I know you and we've interacted, I don't care if you alert me to your ongoing RFA on my talk page. In fact, I welcome it! If you have any more questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk as well. | ||
| Mindspillage (talk) | My main criterion is that I trust the candidate to use good judgment. Wikipedia benefits by having both diligent grunt workers and heavy content contributors as admins, so I won't oppose for concentrating too heavily on one or the other. Enough edits and time to prove that the editor is familiar with policies, guidelines, and the community, and can be trusted to use admin powers responsibly, which varies on an individual basis. I prefer cool-headed people who have shown an active interest in Wikipedia policy and who interact productively with other editors (this includes working toward consensus and avoiding edit wars); I'm more likely to offer an opinion on people I have personally interacted with. | ||
| Mmeinhart (talk) | Self-noms are no big deal to me. As long as the user is friendly, uses good judgement, and communicates well with other users they will get my vote. | ||
| Mmounties (talk) | It matters not whether an RfA is a self-nom or not. I look to the answers to the questions, comments by other (by me) respected users, and I do got to the candidate's page and talk page(s) to get a feel for maturity, civility, capability, supportiveness, etc. I use Interiot's tool mostly to help me check the quality of contributions in all spaces with activity. In other words, I try to look past the facade. I look for all level of involvement and I will vote for specialists with activity in only one area (if need be) - and have done so in the past - if the quality of contributions is there and I'm convinced the tools will help them to better do their job. Prior difficulties or infractions are usually not a concern so long as more than 3 months with regular activity have passed since the incident(s). | ||
| Moreschi | Either 1 FA or several GAs are mandatory. Too many people have no real answer to the "particularly great articles?" question. The editor in question must be a regular vandal-fighter, but I don't care 2 hoots for edit summaries. A reasonable degree of courtesy (and, of course, all-important patience) is required, and past wikistalking, harassment, and trollery mean that you shouldn't even be thinking about RFA. The user must know policy inside out, and have contributed fairly regularly to wikimaintenance. I will vote against anyone who I see chatting too much; Wikipedia is not here for social networking. Don't get confused with MySpace. | ||
| Mostly Rainy (talk) | I'll be happy to support anyone as long as they have at least 100 edits. Getting familiar with Wikipedia usually takes only a couple of weeks. | ||
| Musical Linguist (talk) | No history of foul language, abuse, or ridiculing other editors. No history of filing hasty RfCs or RfArs, or of adding nasty comments. A record of using edit summaries nearly all the time for articles, plus indication that the candidate uses the preview button: what can be done in one edit should not take five edits. A record of helping out in chores such as archiving talk pages would be nice. Featured articles are not important. Major edits are not important. Calmness and courtesy on the talk page are much more important than the number of edits, and where a candidate clearly displays these qualities, I am willing to bend on all other standards. | ||
| Myrtone (☏) | They should be nice to nerds, not simply consider anything with which the cabal disagrees "disruption." Furthermore, I have a dislike for liberalious attitudes, particularly if answers to the questions suggest that they are going to use their new permissions liberally. Self nominations are a minus for me, if Karmafist used to be opposed to them, why shouldn't I? On the other hand, I also like candidates to to have done some translation work. I require candiates to have email enabled and respect privacy of others' private emails, eg no disclosing contents of them without their permission. | ||
[edit] N
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| Naconkantari | Users need to be well-versed in Wikipedia policy and be active in several Wikiprojects. Editors should not have any recent history of vandalism/edit wars/blocks. An email address is a must, as people that have been blocked need some way of contacting the administator that blocks them. Good spelling is also a positive quality. Also, while edit summaries are not mandatory, they greatly help the users that participate on RC patrol. I do not care about age, as levels of maturity vary from individual to individual and maturity is not tied directly to age. |
| Netoholic (talk) | Please see User:Netoholic/Admins |
| Nichalp (talk) | 1) A thousand edits should be fine. I really look for consistency. 300 edits per month is pretty good for me. 2) A candidate should be involved in at least one article dispute. How he handled the situation should give a good idea on him handling tough situations. 3) A Featured Article should be a bonus. It puts the person through the grind. 4) Barnstars on his page. This is a very good indicator of a possible future admin's worth. This tells us that his work out here is appreciated by members of the community. The barnstar(s) however, should be given by one of the Top 1000 editors to prevent dubious/fake ones. Note: I personally vote for only people who I bump into or have seen their signature a couple of times in WP. All those seeking sysop status must have a valid email address. It allows the person who is blocked contact the blocking admin. |
| NicholasTurnbull (talk) | My criteria for adminship are the following:
In general, I do not believe in opposing nominations for good, well meaning editors; thus in circumstances where the candidate is a good faith editor I shall generally abstain from voting rather than vote oppose. In short, since our community is based on trust, I trust good people to make use of adminship well, in the spirit of WP:AGF. |
| Neutrality (talk) | Like Jimbo, I feel that adminship should be "no big deal" and that most of our regular contributers should have adminship powers. In addition to the standards that we expect of regular users (civility, etc.) here's what I believe. Unlike others, I feel that lack of a hyperinterest in adminship duties should be no barrier to adminship; if a user chooses to uses their admin powers rarely, all the power to them. Conversely, however, interest in admin duties (mainly RC, SD, deletion pages and NP patrol) is a plus. I prefer bold users, moderate deletionists and people who aren't afraid to block people. |
| Noel | What's really important is good judgement - knowing when to act slowly and make sure there is consensus on something - or to be able to judge what will gain consensus support. Experience brings that, but sometimes even people with experience don't get it - and sometimes people with little experience pick it up right away. |
| NoSeptember | What namespaces you edit in are important, as is the type of admin you will be, not all admins are alike. See my RfA standards, when I vote and list of other admin related pages. |
| NSLE (T+C) | See here for more. |
[edit] O
| User | Notes |
|---|
A through D • E through K • L through O • P through S • T through Z • ALL (VERY LARGE)
