User:MONGO/Rfa expectations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia administrators have extra tools that allow them to help maintain the website. The primary function administrators perform is that of "janitor". The extra tools they have allow them to more quickly revert vandalism by way of rollback. They also have the ability to delete pages that are either speedy candidates or have by consensus at the various deletion boards, been deemed qualified for deletion. Additionally, administrators have the ability to protect/unprotect pages. There are other extra functions administrators can perform, such as limited page history deletions, as well as the ability to edit protected pages, the ability to see deleted pages in most cases and the editing history of those pages....administrators can also move protected pages. Administrators are expected to maintain a high level of civility and never engage in personal attacks. Administrative tools are not a prize to be won...they exist solely to help maintain the website.
[edit] Minimal expectations
- 3,000 edits at a bare minimum, at least 10% to Wikipedia namespaces such as the various noticeboards like administrator noticeboard, admin noticeboard/incidents and administrator intervention against vandalism and various wikipedia pages.
- 3 months of continuous editing experience...6 months would be better.
- Demonstrated need for administrative tools, detailed by way of reverting vandalism, reporting vandalism to administrator intervention against vandalism or directly to a known admin or by other means that can be tracked via Wikipedia editing history. Another manner by which I can determine a need for administrative tools my include filing requests for page protection for articles which are being repeatedly vandalized or experiencing edit wars (and you're not an involved party).
- Knowledge of the non-free content issues.
- Knowledge of and agreement to not participate in wheel wars.
- Understanding the blocking policy. I am most interested in promoting admin candidates that understand that they never block anyone they have been in a content dispute with, and that whenever they wish to unblock an editor, they first discuss the matter with the original blocking administrator first and/or gain a full consensus to perform the unblock after lengthy discussion at a Wikipedia namespace noticeboard.
- Understanding our protection policy.
- Played a role in getting at least one article to good article level. Even just some copyediting is sufficient. Active involvement in featured article efforts are even better.
[edit] Behavior not acceptable for admin prospects
- Harassment of any kind.
- Sock puppetry...though, disclosed alternative accounts are generally acceptable with explanation.
- Violating the no personal attacks policy.
- Repeated and unapologized for incivility.
- Repeated failure to assume good faith of other editors.
- Repeated examples of edit warring. Many editors have edit warred...repeated examples are unacceptable.
- An extensive block log which demonstrates recent blocks and no sign of improvement. If the block log has more than a few blocks, I expect to see no blocks in the past 6 months of continuous active contributions. If one or two blocks were imposed for violating the three revert rule and isn't recent (6 months prior), then in most cases, that is acceptable. If just one block has been applied due to harassment or a severe personal attack, then I expect a minimum of 6 months of block free editing.
- Repeatedly violating the copyright policy. This also applies to repeatedly uploading copyrighted images that aren't qualifying as non-free use.
- Repeated instances of disruptive canvassing.
- Using offsite venues to join in the chorus against established editors.
