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.
| User |
Notes |
| Tachyon01 (talk) |
An admin must be of good character, fair, and open minded. Must show maturity, civility and good judgement. An admin must be involved in AfD discussions, and must be consistenly active against vandalism. Must be involved in the RC patrol. Article cleanup and copy editing also a plus. Must have a user page. |
| Tawker (Talk) |
Normally I support unless I have reasons not to, I like to see a bit of a wide spread of edits, I don't care too much about project, (I only have a few most of my project sutff isn't editing in project namespace), time, well, 30 days is a but low, but I don't mind, I was prompted after 2 months active, so time isn't a big reflection but I need to know who you really "are" |
| Terence Ong |
Good faith editing on the project. Do admin chores such as AFDs, TFDs, MFDs etc., vandalism reverts etc. My standards may differ for every candidate. Civility on the project at all times. Most contributions should accompany with edit summaries. Writes articles regularly for Wikipedia, that's the main purpose of Wikipedia — an encyclopedia. |
| Tezeti |
Valuable contributions to Wikipedia, NPOV editing, WikiProject Involvement, No flaming, no vandalism, voting,, ... |
| Thε Halo Θ |
While I assess each candidate individually, I normally like a candidate to have made good edits in the main article space, to have shown maturity in talks, and to be committed to the community. These are all very general, so it really is down to the candidate. |
| Thryduulf |
Must have contributed to article, article talk and wikipedia namespaces, and a significant proportion of their edits should be beneficial to the project. Should not have been invovled in any significant disputes in the last month, and should have learned from any occasions they could have, or feel they could have, conducted themselves better and from any constructive criticism they've been given. They should not be under any editing restrictions or have been recently censured by the arbitration committee.
All my criteria are subjective guidelines, and may or may not be applied to every candidate. If I cannot recall having had any interaction with them I will not vote.
|
| Thunderbrand |
Good edits, edit summaries, etc. The important stuff really. |
| themindset |
Civility, good faith, constructive edits. |
| TKD::Talk |
Must use edit summaries, and must have participated in at least a couple different areas of the Wikipedia: namespace. I often will abstain unless I've seen the candidate around previously. |
| Tony Sidaway |
Good chap, seems to know what he's doing, doesn't show too much annoyance at idiotic behavior. Persuasive, approachable. Proper email address, that works (use http://www.bluebottle.com/ which does pop, smtp, imap and webmail and has an excellent spamproofing system). |
| Tuspm |
Must always be acting civil with no warnings and/or blocks. Should also have a good understanding on what an admin does. More detailed information can be found here. |
| Tyrenius |
Civility, balanced individual, someone who displays maturity and competence in handling wiki procedures in whatever area they work in. Failings can be forgiven if they are learnt from and not perpetuated. |
| Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) |
Ability to work well with others, maturity, and trustworthyness. Demonstated commitment to Wikipedia through time, edits, and quality of contributions. A history of conflicts or abuse will be considered highly unfavorably. |
| User |
Notes |
| Vilerage |
I don't care so much about numbers. Adminship is supposed to be No big deal, and that's what I base most of my voting on. I generally support, if I don't think you'll abuse the tools, and you seem to have a grasp on policy. |
| ViridaeTalk |
Must have no history of behaviour unbecoming of a respected editor. Must NEED the tools. For further explanataion see my standards. |
| Viva La Vie Boheme |
My biggest portion, though, is Have I seen you around Wikipedia? The other two really don't matter to me that much. I may want to see if you have made 400 edits outside of your RFA and User Page, but other than that, I want to see you actively working and answer the questions well. |
| Voice of All |
Some really good candidates have less than 3000, so 2500 is my minimum. The problem with less edits is that while some of the candidates may still be trustable, their knowledge of process is often insuffecient and they are more likely to burn out. I see a lot of new admins that seldomly even use admin functions, and their article edit have gone down as well, so there total activity must be down. Like bureaucrats, to a certain degree, I would like for admins to obtain some level of activity. I do not mind if very established non-en. admins that do most of their work off en. become admins on en. though...as long as they plan to be at least minimaly active and understand en. process. |
| Vulcanstar6 |
must have several good edits, and i prefer that they have helped create one good article. i prefer members of the CVU. and should have a good behaivor record. all are merely preferences. |
| User |
Notes |
| Wezzo (Talk) |
Friendly, helpful, amiable and good-natured on Wikipedia, consistently follows Wikipolicy and procedure. 90%+ edit summary usage helps, as does participation in AfD/RfA/Esperanza/WikiProjects etc. Of the 300-500+ edits, at least 10% should be in a talk namespace. |
| Williamborg(Bill) |
- C) If you’re going to field the emotional responses of blocked individuals or authors of deleted articles, you need to be rational—not easily annoyed—avoid overreactions & emotional tantrums—show some sense of humor.
- D) If you’re going to enforce policy, you need to familiarize yourself with policy/procedure (know about moving articles, treating new users, marking for deletion, reasons for deletion, intervention against vandalism, articles for deletion closing/re-listing, mergers and reasonable rationale for blocking)
|
| User |
Notes |
| Zahid Abdassabur |
Non-negotiable: User page must have been vandalized fifteen times or more. |
| Zapptastic |
I usually only vote for users I have worked with in the past or played a game of chess with before. However, I just need to know that you're not going to make stupid mistakes, stupid deletes, stupid blocks, stupid whatever. I need to know that you won't just get up and leave one day, that you're committed to the project. Most importantly, I need to know that you won't purposefully abuse the toolbox. |
| Zero |
I consider hardwork and dedication one of the most important aspects of being an admin. If you are depicting healthy and numerous contibutions, it becomes obvious to me that you genuinely want to improve the project. That said, listening to concensus, parcipation in discussion, and an overall fair and honest demeanor will win me over in no time. It shows that a person will not jump to conclusions without extensive analysis, and I also expect a strong adherence to WP:NPOV. Adherence to policy is also lovely, but I don't expect anyone to be perfect. A few character flaws are what make administrators so varible. |
| Zsinj |
I do not have an edit count requirement because I believe that quality is better than quantity. I do expect all candidates to have experience in several areas such as the Project and article namespaces. I want to see Admin candidates that have a stance against vandalism and firm grip on Wikipedia policies. I will inspect the RFA questions, user talk, contributions, and edit distribution of any potential very carefully. Admins must have a cool head and be able to settle disputes in a calm and effective manner. |
