User:AGK/RfA Standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Activity level: full • Current activity: observing

This user is an administrator of the English Wikipedia.
This user is an administrator.
This user is an observer on the ethnic edit warring work group.
This user is an observer on the ethnic edit warring work group.
This user is a member of the Mediation Committee.
This user is a member of the Mediation Committee.
This user moderates the VandalSniper application.
This user moderates the VandalSniper application.
This user is a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee.
This user is a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee.

Seeing the latest discussion regarding Requests for Adminship (RfA) has prompted me to jump on the bandwagon of publishing my "standards" for candidates at that page. Here goes.

The main questions I ask myself is "Will this candidate misuse the Administrator tools?", and "Will this user make good use of the Administrator tools?"; for me, that's often the turning point in a candidate's RfA: I just see no point in awarding another set of buttons to sit rusting in a corner, whilst the user hurries on with exactly what they did before.

Following that, there's a bunch of "standards" I set candidates, each of which, in their own way, determine suitability and the meeting of the two main questions:

  1. Activity in Administrator-related areas – this is essential for a candidate to demonstrate to the community "I'm going to use the Mop". Participating in XfDs (especially closing), reporting at WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:AN3, etc..., and offering up their two pennies at WP:AIV are all sure-fire ways of doing this.
  2. Block Log – I don't expect to see a block log at all on candidates, and if there is one I'd like it to be *way* backdated - 7-10 months at the least.
  3. Edit Count – edit count doesn't really bother me in the slightest; something ridiculous as "300 total edits" will probably spur me to "Oppose", with advice to get helping out at Admin. areas (XfD, AIV, etc...), but other than a situation like that, I follow a "quality-not-quanity" philosophy. To put this into motion, I don't check the edit count of any candidates I'm reviewing, but rather take a look at their past 500/1000 contributions (as well as any links provided by any previous !voters, especially those going under the "Oppose" section).
  4. Mainspace – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, plain and simply; it's not any things listed here, nor is it a mass-collection of Vandalism noticeboards. As such, I always want to see mainspace (article space) contributions, for example getting an article up to GA status (FA is even better). I treat Portals and the other spaces the same: so long as it's a good bit of work that gives something to the encyclopedia, I'm happy. (Note - WP:GAC participation satisfies this).

So that's that - my hat's in the ring, you know what I want from you. Best luck and best wishes!

My RfA contributions

I'm a frequenter of Requests for adminship. I have "voted" on countless discussions, and nominated a handful of wikipedians. Mostly, however, I'm too busy to "talent scout" :) Those who I have nominated most recently include,

I also close discussions as a non-administrator, and have undertaken such closures more times than I probably care to count :-) If you need assistance in closing an RfA per snow, just ping me. This page is also a good guide to doing so. Anthøny 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)