From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Home Created. Wikified, etc. Userboxen. Barnstars. On RfA 2 "standards" chart 3 No big deal 4 Tyrenius 5 Quality over quantity 6 Lorem ipsum per Pedro 7 Dorftrottel on no big deal

[edit]

Home Created. Wikified, etc. Userboxen. Barnstars. On RfA

[edit] "standards" chart

Note- These standards and the paragraphs below are intended to explain when I feel comfortable offering support on RfA. It is also intended as a tonic against Recallitis, Featuredarticle-itis, Ageitis, Editcountitis, Selfnomitis, Oneyearplusitis, and any other form of arbitaritis that might arise.

Number of Edits	Time	other
3000+ edits or equivalent service-- mediation committee, OTRS, multiple wikipedias. Work in Category:Fair use images, *fD and RCPatrol, AIV, New pages patrol, etc are all definite pluses. Ability to communicate clearly is essential.	Generally at least 3 months.	Demonstrated ability, Featured Article. Major significant contributions weigh for support. History of vandalism, recent blocks, recent serious conflicts (Incivility), demonstrated unreadiness weigh against.

[edit] No big deal

Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. We are edting a Wiki. It does not take but a few months of active participation-- over 2,000 - 3000 edits to: 1) demonstrate the nom believes that the project is important. 2) To demonstrate the nom wants to help improve the project. 3) To learn enough about how the project works to not damage it by deleting encyclopedic content or blocking constructive editors. These are the most important, sysop-type duties of the admin. Historically, users have been given admin responsibilities after about three months experience and about 2000 edits. Generally speaking, most admins have done an outstanding job of using the tools. Balanced against the needs of a project that has grown much faster than the number of admins, the fact remains that more admins are needed than are created. It is to the project's benefit to grant adminship to the capable. Unless someone can show me a clear cut example of lack of understanding through faulty judgment or temperamental incompatibility through incivility or rashness, I cannot help but vote Support for this and other noms who have made constructive edits for around three months and about 3000 edits.

Further reading User:Ral315/WTHN

[edit] Tyrenius

on adminship from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

I will be more specific. I suggest the following are suitable credentials for being an admin:

1) Editor has specialised in a certain subject area, and has shown a good quality of edits, the ability in any disputes or talk to be reasonable and courteous, and has reverted vandalism, then left the appropriate test tags on the vandal's talk page. The editor states his main intention with adminship is to deal with vandals and edit-orientated matters, such as page moves involving deletion/redirects (in his "specialist" area). The lack of contribution to Afd, Rfa, AN etc etc should not count against him, because these are not skills he needs.

2) The editor has done very little article editing, but has demonstrated a dedication to a particular area, e.g. vandal fighting. The editor says his intention as an admin is to continue vandal fighting. The lack of article editing should not count against him. If the editor has been dedicated to any other specific area, e.g. AfD, and states that as an admin that is the area he wishes to work in, then lack of participation in other areas should not count against him.

This is what I mean by specialisation being a good thing in the selection of admins.

An admin who wishes to do vandal-fighting in the subject area in which he is proficient does not need to have participated in RfA etc, and it is counter-productive to encourage him to do so, as it uses up the time he would otherwise be spending in creating good quality articles. I understand that someone who does specialise in a certain subject area would wish to have admin powers, so they can further their ability to look after that area. I can't see the point of encouraging them or expecting them to learn about other areas which they will not need to make use of.

Taking part in RfA, AfD, Village Pump and AN does not necessarily mean people understand policy. There are other ways that should be acceptable to demonstrate an editor's understanding of policy, one of them being good edits. That also shows the editor's ability to master policy and put it into practice, an ability they will then be able use for the practice of adminship also. Tyrenius 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality over quantity

How do we value large, significant edits? In one hour, I can make about 20 vandalism edits between reverts and warnings. I can make about the same number of edits welcoming new contributors and tagging/cat'ing/stubbing their new articles. An edit like this takes me about 40 minutes. As my alternate user, I created this stub. It took me 20 hours to do the research and compose the article. In that time, I could have made many more edits doing other things.

I am not trying to establish some sort of equivalence. I believe that would be striving to hard to weigh intangibles. However, I do not believe an editor is disqualified from adminship because they had the patience and commitment to make a number of large edits over a long period of time. On the contrary, I believe that they have the the dedication, intelligence, critical thinking and writing skills to not abuse the tools.

[edit] Lorem ipsum per Pedro

"And it came to pass that the editor did seek adminship. For it was rumoured that this would bring great gains and fulfilment, and a status exalted above all others save for the mythical beast of 'crat. But the editor had not heeded well words of wisdom. He had mady a dodgy CSD A7 call but twenty seven moons before. And thus his request was rejected by his brethren, and great was his shame and ignomny."

[edit] Dorftrottel on no big deal

With regard to this comment: One frequently mentioned notion is that "adminship is no big deal" (per Jimbo) and thus the default is to support the request unless there are reasons not to. I.e., by supporting you are essentially marking your agreement with the nomination. Opposes in contrast contradict the nomination and opposers should present some outline of their reasoning which leads them to not support a candidate. —AldeBaer