User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the community discussion page.

The basic question we should be asking ourselves when discussing an RfA is: "Will Wikipedia be better off if this candidate is an admin?" Here, I have attempted to quantify the verifiable characteristics I look at when viewing an admin candidate, and deciding one way or the other.

Contents

[edit] My RfA criteria

[edit] Factors that help lead to a "Support"

  1. More than 500 Wikipedia-space edits (not including edits to the Esperanza Coffee lounge.)
  2. Generally I would want to see more than 1000 article edits, and 2500 edits overall, along with three months of experience. A sizable number of the user's edits should be within the last three months.
  3. Significant contributions to multiple mid- to large-sized articles. Bonus: Being the primary contributor to said articles, or the original author of them (if you brought them beyond a stub.) Extra Bonus: Significant contributions, like those described above, to subjects that are the target of long, ongoing POV warring and/or subjects that receive relatively little attention on the English Wikipedia. (Examples include obscure subjects relating to non-English speaking nations and very localized places/phenomena that still meet notability guidelines.)
  4. Answers to questions that show a desire for admin tools and a basic understanding of their function (including how you will apply the new tools.) Also, evidence of experience related to the tasks the user intends to help with.
  5. A sense of humor and/or demonstrable helpfulness towards newbies and other users. Bonus: Outstanding conflict resolution skills.
  6. A bare minimum of conversation with fellow Wikipedians, preferably at least 350 total Article talk, Wikipedia talk and User talk edits (not all of which are simple template placement.)

[edit] Rationale for each

  1. Wikipedia-space experience is usually essential for understanding Wikipedia policy and how the admin tools should best be used. Also, while our mission is to build an encyclopedia, admins are largely in charge of the behind-the-scenes work that goes into this grand project of ours, and the Wikipedia-space is all about that behind-the-scenes work. In addition, Wikipedia-space edits are more uniform than other types of edits (i.e., most AfD contributions are exactly one line long) and thus edit count is more useful as a measure of experience in this field.
  2. Edit count is a quick judge of experience, along with the time you spent here. It is admittedly far from perfect, but other factors and mitigating factors address this. Also, recent contributions are mainly what I look at... A recent long layoff is not especially helpful.
  3. We are trying to build an encyclopedia; these types of contributions are the ones I value the most.
  4. This should be obvious; a potential admin should understand what an admin does, with evidence that they can handle some pressure and use the tools effectively.
  5. Humor and helpfulness is always in short supply here, and a lack of it leads to newbies and valued editors leaving the project. Wikipedia is also a community, and I would hope that the more exemplary members of that community (the admins) can have some fun at this. Conflict resolution can also be a huge plus, and I admire those who do well under pressure and are (potentially) able to bring together warring factions.
  6. This is less important than the others, but potential admins ought to be able to communicate.

[edit] Mitigating factors for each

  1. I will tolerate between 300-500 Wikipedia-space edits if you have more than 5000 article edits, or less than 300 WP-space edits with more than 10,000 article edits. Outstanding contributions per support factor #3 help lower these thresholds. Also, if the candidate will dedicate all their initial admin efforts towards vandal fighting, or another area that requires little WP-space experience (other than possibly WP:AIV,) I am more likely to support.
  2. Outstanding contributions per factor #3 lower these thresholds. Must still meet factor #1. Recent abscence due to real-world issues is okay if other factors are met.
  3. If your contributions are overwhelmingly small revisions and/or vandal fighting, and you have more than 5000 edits, I may ignore this factor.
  4. You may simply say you will "help where needed", as long as you show a history of involvement in admin-like areas and an understanding of the tools.
  5. As long as you are civil and helpful to the project, I'll probably ignore this.
  6. If your communications and rationales are very detailed, I might conceivably ignore this.

[edit] Factors that help lead to an "Oppose"

  1. An obvious shortcoming in meeting one of my support factors (without a mitigating factor.)
  2. E-mail not activated.
  3. A major lack in the use of edit summaries, particularly for major edits. (Must be roughly at least 50% for minor edits and 75% for major edits.)
  4. Consistent use of one word "votes" in XfDs, or one word "oppose" votes or a link without any context in RfAs. (At least use "per so-and-so" in your opinion, and more than that if the discussion is very controversial.)
  5. A history of general dickish behavior, including declaring a "personal attack" when there obviously isn't one being made.
  6. Evidence of continued and blatant incivility, including any form of harrassment.
  7. Evidence of continued and blatant POV pushing. This includes the use of willfully misleading edit summaries while editing articles.
  8. A block within the last two months for anything other than 3RR, or an ongoing ArbCom case.
  9. The user is a denizen of WikiHell.

[edit] Rationale for each

  1. Should be self-evident.
  2. Admins should be able to be contacted outside Wikipedia.
  3. I highly value contributors who explain themselves well. Saying what you are changing within an article saves others time checking what you are doing and better alerts others to your intentions.
  4. I highly value contributors who explain themselves well. XfDs are a discussion, not a vote. The top of RfA page suggests that you explain yourself well, especially for an oppose vote. (I always use a full sentence rationale, support or oppose, even if I point to this extensive page.)
  5. I hate dicks.
  6. Continued and obvious incivility is not acceptable.
  7. POV-pushing is frowned upon for many, many reasons.
  8. This mainly serves as evidence of a violation of other oppose factors, or vandalism.
  9. Self-explanatory, I would hope.

[edit] Mitigating factors for each

  1. No mitigation for mitigators.
  2. If you activate your e-mail, this factor no longer applies.
  3. In a couple cases I have seen, a user's major edits came very early in their Wikilife, and their edits were overwhelmingly minor edits, causing the edit summary usage to be misleading. I will ignore this factor if that is the case.
  4. No real mitigating factor, although if the discussion is a pile-on, I'll assume you're going with the rationale everyone else used.
  5. No mitigating factor.
  6. No mitigating factor.
  7. POV pushing is sometimes a difficult thing to oppose off of, and I will investigate it on a case-by-case basis if an accusation has been made by someone else.
  8. If I feel the block or ArbCom case is unjustified or unusually harsh, I may ignore this.
  9. No mitigating factor.

[edit] Special cases

  • If you were an admin before:
Some of the things above are waived. I will judge you primarily based on two things:
  1. Your use of the admin tools, including your willingness to follow/ignore policy
  2. (More important than the above) Your interactions with other users, particularly those centered around your use of the admin tools. (I especially dislike very standoffish admins who are unwilling to discuss things or who belittle other editors; this will be noted.)
  • If you are an admin on another Wikimedia wiki and/or have a substantial number of edits there:
Your contributions on the other project will be noted, but given less weight than your contributions here. Contributions on larger projects (where the process is more similar to that of the English Wikipedia) will be given more weight than those on smaller projects.
Any missteps on the other project (blocks, wheel warring, etc.) will be weighed as though they were committed here.
  • If you are a Wikimedia Foundation trustee or otherwise close to Jimbo:
Too bad. I will judge you like I do everyone else. I DO NOT PLAY FAVORITES BASED ON REAL-LIFE ACTIVITY.

[edit] In conclusion

Good mixtures of support and oppose factors will often result in a neutral opinion.

I hope that this is comprehensive and not too confusing. I reserve the right to revise this at any time. Thanks. Grandmasterka