Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Factors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

This is a survey to find out what factors related to candidates are important to people when they give their opinions on requests for adminship. It's not a poll, or a vote, it's just a survey to generate some ideas and hopefully, to develop a better understanding of what the community looks for in a candidate.

How to participate: Below is a list of factors. If a factor is relevant to you, give an indication of whether it is important, very important, or not important in your assessment of a candidate, and give some reasons why that is so.

1 Factors
2 See also

[edit] Factors

Feel free to add factors that are not listed below, but try to keep them broadly defined.

[edit] Contribution of content

Important Pascal.Tesson
Neutral --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Daniel Bryant 08:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Captain panda 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Though what does "content" mean in this context? I assume "mainspace" contributions? And quality of mainspace contributions, rather than quantity, and does copyediting count more or less than briliant writing and adding references? I would also add committment somewhere in here, as contributing content for a while and then stopping shows lack of committment. Sustained addition of content is what I would look for, to ensure continued up-to-date experience "at the chalkface". Carcharoth 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Contribution of content does make a person familiar with Wikipedia, but it does not improve one's ability to administrate, as far as maturity, etiquette, civility, etc . etc. Dreadnaught 15:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Pea ceNT 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, as I think having a decent number of contributions will also generally indicate someone is at least basically familiar with how things work here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Necessary. We have some good maintenance workers, such as User:MER-C and User:Amarkov, who have failed RFAs because of insufficient content contributions. My general sense is that you need to write within the encyclopedia to become part of the encyclopedia project; or to say it differently, there should not be a fundamental difference between article writers and administrators. YechielMan 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant - The only reason I would look for mainspace contributions is to see collaboration with other users, but if they do that in another way (perhaps building a WikiProject or a new policy/guideline/essay) then I don't think it's important. People may not be good at writing articles but excellent at maintenance, so isn't it a bit backwards that they should be denied adminship on the grounds that they haven't contributed enough to the articlespace? James086^{Talk | Email} 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. It is not critical to meet 1FA or anything like that, nor even have a GA, but to have done some work on the encyclopedia is generally good. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Not everyone will write an FA or even a GA. However, no article writing shows a lack of knowledge about one of our key areas. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that it is unimportant. Not all administrators should be content writers. The most that you could get from a candidate writing a lot of content is collaboration with other users. Aquatics 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Only important if 'content' can be defined as other namespaces as well (templates, categorization, wikiprojects, etc). Administrative work almost universally detracts from the time you can spend doing content-editing for the encyclopedia, so this is less important than many other factors. Basic knowledge of how Wikipedia works and flows, though, is crucial. Only a couple hundred edits may be needed to show that. -- nae'blis 18:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Low importance. Content can be written in isolation (although that gets harder, without veering into cruft, as the article space gets larger). Some experience is good, but more is not better. GRBerry 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important, but a good vandalfighter or wikignome is an acceptable alternative. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Leaving aside strict and square criteria like the old "Diablo test", ignoring the article-building process is essentialy ignoring what, and why we're here for. Phaedriel - 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. We are here to build the encyclopedia after all, though work in non-mainspace areas is still necessary. Acalamari 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. It's hard to be familiar with Wikipedia policies without a reasonable amount of hands-on experience. Project space edits are all well and good, but at some point you need to stop talking about it and start doing it. (I realize the irony of writing this on a page as "meta" as this one.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairly important: we are, after all, an encyclopedia, and an admin should have some experience actually building the thing. That said, I've supported people who were really good at maintenance activities but didn't write much. Antandrus (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important -- This is the project and everything else is secondary. This can be satisfied through wikignomish activity, too, since such activity improves the overall content. — Scientizzle 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sort of important. If a user doesn't contribute content, I don't hold it against them if they show respect and understanding for those who do. Kusma (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. goes without saying that's what we're doing (i.e. making an encyclopedia..) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. It's what we do. It's who we are. Sandstein 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important: admins must not be purely janitors, but primarily editors. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Their are so many different ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important (I'm defining content narrowly so as to exclude gnome work or vandal fighting). It's the overall goal. Not essential though; people who don't write content can still be good admins. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant, but necessary. Administrators are not appointed to expand stubs or anything and they have much more important work to do around here, but it would be a help if they are familiar with editing and contributing to articles. --Vaishu2 05:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important HaLoGuY007
Very important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on each situation - I don't expect candidates to necessarily be huge article-writers, but they need to have a decent number of mainspace contribs in order to be familiar with some admin tasks. Really, though, the admin tasks have little to do with article-writing. It works in reverse as well; there are some great article-writers who would not make good admins. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. The point is the encyclopedia. Editors that don't have substantive experience in building content are not part of the encyclopedia project. - Banyan Tree 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Deletion Quality 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important - Admins who don't contribute content will be much less familiar with the process (generally). An Admin who is familiar with contributing content is far more likely to be able to diagnose a problem that's occuring. WilyD 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important DebateKid 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important - If this means content in general, and not just mainspace, then it is very important. Shows participation in the project overall. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important, though "content" may mean different things to different people. —davidh.oz.au 05:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Silent reverie86 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously an administrator needs to know their way around, and adding content is the principal directive of the whole encyclopedia project, so one would have to assume that a user who had not actually added much content wouldn't really be familiar with the main thrust of the project's purpose. Moreover, it is in adding content that one obtains the experiences that are so commonly arbitrated or resolved by admins: edit conflicts, POV disputes, building page consensus, etc. It would be hard to interpret and enforce policy on writers if one did not understand writers from experience.128.220.212.139 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. I would want to see that the person's been around the block a time or two, and had at least some experience with contentious issues over articles, so that they have some idea what's going on when they inevitably have to wade into the middle of those. On the other hand, not every good admin could write an FA, nor would every person who frequently writes FAs make a very good admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Edits to "mainspace" are probably the best way to determine how well a user understands the project (we are an encyclopedia) and fathoms the breadth of topics covered in article space. For example, unsuccessful speedy deletion taggings of legitimate, but obscure, topics might be a sort of culture-shock deletionism. Of course, this is based on the premise that using a {{db}} tag is saying "I would have speedy-deleted this myself if I had the ability to do so". Some might disagree, but I do not see why should it be taken more lightly than that. Also, when a user adds new information to an article (rather than expanding or re-writing previous information), it is important to see that he or she has made some effort to provide a source (even if it's not well-formatted, or even if the source is only noted in the edit's summary or on the talk page, at least they tried, and at least somebody can follow up on it later), that the text is original, rather than plagiarized, and that the user understands when non-free images may or may not be added to the article they are working on, and that a user's significant removals of content have a valid some basis in policy rather than "I don't like it". — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Moderatley important, that is afterall what we are here for! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important, to check for a "non-vandal" Dvyjones^t·c·e 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. This is, after all, a project to build and encyclopaedia. Article writing forces a person to have their words "edited mercilessly" - ability to deal with that is a good way to judge suitability for admin candidates. Article writing also tends to bring you into conflict with other editors and tends to force you to become familiar with at least basic policies. While wikignomes are also important to the project, people who focus on the social or political/administrative elements of the project tend to be (IMO) less suitable candidates. Guettarda 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important - if someone can't demonstrate that their edits are in tune with the core purpose of the project (building an encyclopaedia) then they shouldn't be granted access to the sysop tools. Waggers 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Though I recall one or two very active vandal fighters who didn't do much writing, and I supported their RFAs. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Though not the most important thing, as admin tools don't really aid someone in contributing content. Theredhouse7 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution to featured content

Not important Pascal.Tesson
Not important --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant but not important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Captain panda 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, though a bonus, and admins should respect those who do contribute featured content. Carcharoth 14:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important Pea ceNT 14:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
NOt important, some of us have different skills, not everyone is an awsome writer... at least not of the english language, but they might be a great python or C++ writer, or have other skills. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, though interesting. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but it helps a little. I never understood the rationale behind WP:1FA. YechielMan 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - isn't at all related to deleting, blocking, protecting or undoing any of those actions. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
A bonus, but not important. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
A bonus, but not important. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments: Advantages of getting an article featured: 1. Knowledge of the manual of style 2. Knowledge of attribution 3. Knowledge of getting credible sources 4. Knowledge of acceptable image copyright status. 5. Collaborating and networking with other wikipedians 6. Ability to handle the extremely stressful FAC environment, second to only RFA. 7. Contribution to the quality of wikipedia. (Armed with knowledge of 1-4, reverting vandalism (especially the subtle ones) becomes much easier, and less robotic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be used as a deciding factor. A bonus, however, certainly. Aquatics 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see and may mitigate some other problems (especially early-tenure errors), but in no way a requirement. -- nae'blis 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. GRBerry 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Phaedriel - 14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant, but a bonus definitely. Acalamari 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant on its own, but it's a big plus when measuring "contribution of content" as a whole. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Good to see, but not essential. Antandrus (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant -- Just icing on the cake. — Scientizzle 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Utterly unimportant. While I may strongly appreciate excellant writing skills, they have no bearing on whether or not I would trust someone with the mop. Vassyana 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice (a possible reason to support) but not important enough to oppose somebody about it. Kusma (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
important. a big bonus if someone's getting stuck inta these, making a really good encyclopedia. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I just have to add this - I have found working with a bunch of like minded folks on an article or wikiproject when it kicks into top gear one of the most inspiring things, the rapid-fire editing of an article gunning toward FA as writer's blocks are sequentially blasted out of the way is just amazing to witness via the diffs/hists. I had 3 quick beers and burbled all this out at the wikipedia Sydney meetup yesterday while mildly intoxicated and amused to be verbalising all these names and people I've only ever written about (real mind bender that)...anyway I'll just mosey off and edit some articles now.............cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unimportant: while a good sign, it's difficult to measure. Sandstein 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important: this signifies a knowledge of policies, commitment to the community goals, and a positive ability to collaborate and work with others. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but a bonus. If you're not interested in pushing your writing through the FAC process, that doesn't make you worse as an admin. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but it is a bonus, just as a few others pointed out.--Vaishu2 08:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Bonus It helps, but probably is not needed. Not everyone has a chance to do that. HaLoGuY007 11:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Totally irrelevant. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important but bonus--St.daniel ^talk 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather unimportant. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but nice to have. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but has some weight when considering an admin candidate. - Banyan Tree 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I won't oppose someone for not contributing featured content, but, a user with a lot of FA-contributions without any psychotic tendencies would get an almost automatic yes. A feature contributor would have knowledge of image copyright, MOS, proper editing, and the diplomatic skills needed to handle the rabid mob at FAC. That's almost all the traits you need as an admin. Borisblue 00:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Deletion Quality 18:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. The ability to layout a page for best flow or write captivating prose isn't critical. This is just honing of skills and real dedication and knowledge of one subject - nice for editors, but not really useful to admins. WilyD 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everyone else. Not a deciding factor. DebateKid 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - Not being good at creating doesn't mean they're not good at judging. Adminship has many roles beyond making featured content. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice, but unimportant. —davidh.oz.au 05:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. There are many other users who can focus on just one article. Silent reverie86 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Writing quality is fantastic, but not the core competency of administrators, who are called to interpret and enforce policy.128.220.212.139 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Adminship isn't a reward for great content writers, it's a decision as to whether someone could handle the position and tools appropriately. And if anything, administrative duties will take away from the time the best have to just write. Mainly, it's our job to keep the crap out so they can work in peace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Improving one article from "poor" to "decent" benefits the encyclopedia a lot more than improving another article from "good" to "featured". — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but a major positive, most admin work is cleaning up spills, not polishing the fine china. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but useful Dvyjones^t·c·e 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. I couldn't put it better than CharlotteWebb above. Waggers 13:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interaction with other users

Very important Pascal.Tesson
Vital. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 04:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Pivotal. El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Captain panda 12:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. For obvious reasons. Though note that this is only required for the admin tools that require interaction - ie. blocking and page protection. Less important for the other admin tools. Clearing out CSD might occassionally need you to explain things to someone, but that and other housekeeping tools don't require great social skills or diplomacy. Carcharoth 14:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important Pea ceNT 14:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Most admin work requires interaction (explaning why an article was deleted, helping someone understand a policy and why it was enforced, etc.), and how an editor interacts with other editors can show how they would interact when an admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely number one on my list. I carefully read the nomination to see the tone of the candidate's answers. Is he clear and thorough? Does he show respect? If people in the oppose section have noted incivility or newbie biting, are those concerns legitimate? Virtually the only way to intentionally abuse admin tools, short of the recent incident, is to lord it over users who can't fight back. Anyone who shows respect and humility to other users will never run into any serious trouble. YechielMan 03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important, critical, even. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Assuming this question is actually asking if positive interactions are important, then yes, definitely. -- nae'blis 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Working with and forming consensus is significant; handing out template messages is almost meaningless. GRBerry
Very important - an admin who can't explain why they speedied a newcomer's page is not suitable (IMO). Also standard responses such as "It violated CSD A1" don't count. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Vital. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Decisive, perhaps the most important criteria from my point of view. The ability to exercise patience and restrain, or even hand out a kind word, more often than not is enough to solve an otherwise acrid dispute. Reversely, happily jumping into arguments and making them escalate in magnitude are a no-no in a potential candidate. Phaedriel - 14:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. An admin needs to be familiar with talk pages and WP:CIVIL. Acalamari 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Vital. This is, perhaps, the one issue that can reasonably trump all others. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely vital. One must maintain civility, patience, and calm even when dealing with some of the worst trolls on the internet, and if one is an active admin, this is a daily challenge. It's neither easy nor a common trait. Antandrus (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My top criteria -- this is a collaborative effort and failures in collaboration will only stifle progress. — Scientizzle 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. The ability to deal with others is extremely useful in a collaborative environment. Vassyana 08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
essential - a prerequisite to editing really. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important, for the reasons noted by everyone above. Sandstein 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. This is the primary area where an admin can go wrong, ie. getting in scuffles. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Both. Its important if your going to be blocking or watching sock puppets. But if you delete a page per speedy, its not important. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very, very important. Editors who fail on this point should not become administrators. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Vaishu2 08:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very Berry Important. This is a skill needed for administrators. HaLoGuY007 11:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. A candidate who's had little or no interaction with other users can't demonstrate that they understand basic civility, or how to respond to queries about Wikipedia policy and process, which they will need to do as an admin. Ideally, I prefer candidates to have some involvement in a collaborative scheme of some kind - Wikiprojects, WP:AMA, WP:ASSIST, WP:ADOPT, or something of that nature. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Incredibally important --St.daniel ^talk 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Vital'. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Extremely, very important One's personality shows through with their interactions with users. Gutworth 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Probably the admin skill. The ability to communicate clearly and calmly to irate and confused people is basic. Super brownie points if the candidate has that amazing skill of making users feel good about being corrected. - Banyan Tree 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Uber important. Unless they are some sort of internet anti-social recluse. Deletion Quality 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Otherwise, the needs and opinions of others won't be understood. DebateKid 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important - Communication skills are incredibly important in maintenence. You can't do a good job without explaining your actions well. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important. —davidh.oz.au 05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is probably the *most* important aspect of being an administrator. As someone that needs to fight vandals, help newbies around, mediate conflicts, build consensus, and enforce policy, good social skills are an absolute must.128.220.212.139 01:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Critical. This is absolutely the deciding factor for me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important but always secondary to everything else. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Important, admins must be able to communicate well with editors, be responsive, and take ownership for their actions. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important, so you don't be a admin everybody hate because you can't get contact with them.
Very important although it is possible to demonstrate very good knowledge of policy etc. without it. Users who spend more time in the project and talk spaces than improving articles make me question what their true motives are. Waggers 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Of paramount importance. If the user can't get along with others, s/he shouldn't be here at all. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement with collaborative efforts such as WikiProjects

Not important as such but a strong indicator of positive interaction with other users. Pascal.Tesson
Important-shows how person acts with other users. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant, but not really a must-have. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important (working with others in any sort of collaboration, even simply with someone else on an article), not important (strictly a Wikiproject). Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant but not important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Captain panda 12:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Seems a bit irrelevant to me. Some collaborative experience in general might be a good idea, as I have encountered prickly editors and editors that obviously prefer to work alone. Maybe involvement at noticeboards might be a better indicator than WikiProjects (some of which are very closed and insular). Carcharoth 14:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
No real need for this, as long as they demonstrate that they can handle themselves in a social situation. This is just one way that they can show this, there are other ways. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, though I agree with Pascal.Tesson that involvement and interaction in a WikiProject can give good examples of how they will interact if made an admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not relevant. I am dumbfounded by User:Kelly Martin's preference for admin candidates with Wikiproject experience. I'm not in a Wikiproject, and I don't intend to join one. It's just not necessary unless you work on articles that require heavy collaboration. Some people, such as I, work better independently on jobs that nobody else wants to do. YechielMan 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It provides evidence of how a user interacts with other users, but it is not critical. Such evidence does not have to be acquired through WikiProject involvement. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, although interaction within a project can be a very good indicator of how a candidate will interact within the wider community. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important so long as the user has experience on other Talk-space pages that can be evaluated. -- nae'blis 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, this is just one form of interacting with users. And for some projects, not even that. GRBerry 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - so long as they do actually interact with others (see above section). James086^{Talk | Email} 07:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. "Interaction with others" covers it better; not every topic has a project, and not every project actually does anything besides listing names. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
A positive indicator of the ability to interact with the community, but definitely not the most important one. Phaedriel - 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. I am in full agreement with YechielMan. I don't want to join a WikiProject either. With my mainspace editing, I've done work on articles that don't get a lot of attention, and aren't always in WikiProjects. I believe that making WikiProjects a requirement for adminship will make users join WikiProjects for the wrong reasons. Acalamari 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant on its own, but can be a relevant part of "interaction with others". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant, but a generally good thing. — Scientizzle 05:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. It won't really tell me anything additional about a candidate. Their ability to work collaboratively, deal with others, etc can all be seen from general Wikipedia participation. Vassyana 08:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant; collaboration can be done with or without formal structures. Kusma (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Important (though not essential its a big plus). I've worked on a few and it blows my mind how quickly things can improve and develop with a concerted wikiproject. Big plus for FAs and streamlining whole swathes of the 'pedia in the nicest possible way. A seamless way on voting on collabs and getting things going. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Wikipedia is the collaborative effort that counts. Sandstein 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Not everyone likes to work primarily with others or write in areas with a good WikiProject.
Not important. Wikiprojects are just organized groups for working on articles. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. It gives a good indication of the ability to work with others. However, an editor that likes to work on very different topics is unlikely to be active in a WikiProject and that shouldn't be held against him. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. --Vaishu2 08:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. It is possible that they would learn interaction skills quicker, though may show bias when talking about the subject of a WP. HaLoGuY007 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not essential, but preferable, per my comments in the previous section. It shows experience with interacting with other users. However, it should never be an absolute requirement in the case of a very strong candidate who has experience in other areas. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important but good--St.daniel ^talk 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC) bonus
Not important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Least important ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important except as a way of seeing how the user interacts with others, per the section above. - Banyan Tree 04:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. DebateKid 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - Just another form of building communication skills. Other forms are available. Lack of involvement could mean versatility, but not a definite way to show it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally unimportant. Some WikiProjects do not follow the usual Wikipedia practice in certain areas. —davidh.oz.au 05:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not necessary, but usually a very good indicator. Projects require organization, motivation, and collaboration. These qualities indicate someone who has good organizational skills and is good at dealing with other editors in a constructive manner--qualities that will be of supreme importance as as admin.128.220.212.139 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not necessary, possibly beneficial. This may show a good ability to interact with other users, which is critically important, but it's far from the only way to show that skill. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important, especially for those who edit more efficiently without collaborating. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important, but a positive. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important but earns plenty of bonus points Waggers 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experience in dealing with disputes

Important Pascal.Tesson
Important --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Pivotal. El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Captain panda 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important but diffiult to quantify. Candidate would need to provide specific examples, rather than vague hand-waving. The important points here are an ability to explain policy clearly and with patience. Losing your temper while trying to explain policy, or being dismissive and pointing people to policy pages without explanations, are both bad. Equally though, being able to recognise trolling and not be gullible enough to waste your time on time-wasters, is desirable as well. Inevitably, a lot will be learnt on the job. More a case of, OK, you know enough to carry on learning by yourself, as they say when you pass a driving test. Carcharoth 14:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important, for obvious reasons. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important but not essential. Anyone who has positive experience on MedCab gets an almost automatic support from me. YechielMan 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very Important. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important but hard to measure. Question 3 usually does a pretty good job with this, as does talk page edits. -- nae'blis 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Evidence of thoughtful contributions is imporant. Me-too-ism is useless. GRBerry 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant, but quite possible that a candidate hasn't had much disputes yet. However, as an admin you will inevitably run into a dispute at some point. >Radiant< 08:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, keeping in mind that some people may have never run into a serious dispute prior to their RfA, which may be a good indicator in itself. As such, absence of dealing with serious disputes shouldn't be held against the nominee. Phaedriel - 14:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, in agreement with Phaedriel. Acalamari 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. An admin who doesn't end up in disputes sometimes is an admin who isn't doing very much at all, so admin candidates need to be prepared. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, and ideally, not just experience in handling one's own disputes, but some experience in dispassionately intervening and calming down a dispute between others. Antandrus (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Important -- a demonstrable ability to settle disputes is great, but in the absence of such evidence, a clear grasp of civility policy and common sense will do in a pinch. — Scientizzle 05:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Very useful and instructive. With duties like XfD and tools like blocks, admins should have a decent capacity for dealing with conflict. Some indication of such capacity would influence my decisions. Vassyana 08:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
very important, though any sane person avoids them until an admin if they want to pass an RfA...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Admins are not primarily arbitrators, though it's nice if potential ones have proven themselves to be reasonable and peaceful. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, perhaps even very important, but allowances must be made for editors that never found themselves in much of a dispute. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but as Jitse Niesen pointed out, candidates inexperienced in resolving disputes should not be voted out for that reason. --Vaishu2 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Pivotal indeed. HaLoGuY007 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite important, but it's better to have experience in resolving other users' disputes, rather than experience in having disputes. A candidate should not be opposed just because they're too mild-mannered to have had any arguments over editing. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important, echo comment immediately above. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but I'll join Neutrality in echoing Walton monarchist89 above. - Banyan Tree 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Critical - and regarding the above, admins who can't handle conflict are probably going to have a hard time. WilyD 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. DebateKid 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important - Shows ability to handle tough situations, there will always be someone disagreeing with something an admin does. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important and relevant, but the user may have been wise enough to avoid them entirely. Echoing Walton's sentiment above. —davidh.oz.au 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Deletion Quality 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Extremely important. If there is one area in which administrator action is more consistently divisive, it is in the resolution of conflicts. Evidence of a user dealing poorly with conflict, or fanning the flames of a conflict, should be indicators that they will make a bad admin. Examples of having found a compromise between editors should be an indicator that the admin will do a good job.128.220.212.139 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Tremendously important. There are very few worse disasters than an admin who doesn't properly know how to handle a hot dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It really depends on the nature of the dispute. In some cases, it could actually reflect poorly on the user, especially if he or she was on the wrong side of an important policy. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Moderatley important, a plus, but admins can perform non-controversial duties only if they are not skilled in mediation. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - people who aren't prone to being involved in disputes themselves are generally better at staying cool and resolving disputes between others. Waggers 13:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Important but not critical. It's nice to see how a potential admin handled XYZ stressful situation, but it's possible that the user just hasn't been involved in any conflicts. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experience with deletion processes

Very important Pascal.Tesson
Very important --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. (italics added; per Carcharoth) El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Captain panda 12:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Can be learnt on the job. A candidate with the right skills can read up on the technical points of the deletion processes. Now, if you mean deletion policies, then that is important. They should spend some time lurking and participating at XfD discussions before closing them, and a requirement should be the ability to provide a carefully reasonsed closing statement that will close the matter. Carcharoth 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but can be learned. I think participation in the process beforehand is a good thing, but not necessarily required. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important, unless the candidate states up front that his interests lie outside the deletion process (e.g. he prefers blocking and protecting pages). You can't be trusted to delete pages if you haven't considered several hundred cases first. YechielMan 03:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Only important if they intend to delete things. A user who wants to block and protect without deleting doesn't need to know how. If they intend to close CFDs I expect to see a history of expressing their opinions on CFDs. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Familiarity: yes. Deep involvement: no. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As per Titoxd. Familiarity is very important, although it can be learnt as you go. Deep involvement in metadiscussions is not crucial. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Titoxd on this one. I'd like an admin to be familiar with how a RfD process works.. but they don't have to be "deeply involved", in his words. Aquatics 17:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. One of three basic tools the admin receives is the deletion/undeletion button. They had better know when not to use it. GRBerry 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. I think an admin should have experience with some process, be it FAC or IFD or whatever, and if they do they can pick up the rest at need. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, specially if the candidate states his/her intention of taking active part in the deletion process. At least a little involvement to show enough familiarty is sufficient. Phaedriel - 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, in agreement with Titoxd and Riana. Being familiar with the policies is a good thing so an administrator doesn't delete legitimate pages. Acalamari 16:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, unless their nomination is based on it. Deletion is just one area of what admins do, but it's often blown out of proportion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Moderately important, and more so if deletion is mentioned in the candidate's statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antandrus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm with Titoxd, familiarity is very important, but extensive experience isn't necessary. — Scientizzle 05:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important; adminship isn't about deletion. The deletion processes are an easy way to demonstrate understanding of policy, but nobody needs to work there, and the experience can be gained on the job. I still don't know how IFD works, and don't think this makes me a poor admin. Kusma (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
important but sometimes I feel there is an overzealousness which undermines the creativeness of the place. Common sense and familiarity with how big and broad and detailed the whole shebang is getting is essential, and I don't think there is any secret knowledge of the deletion process as such beyond this. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. As per Carcharoth: can be learnt as necessary. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, given that deletion is a large part of the work for many admins. Not essential though: it can be learnt, it's not the hardest part, and it's possible to be a good and useful admin without doing anything related to deletion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. --Vaishu2 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but can be learned - • The Giant Puffin • 11:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Candidates should have some experience either with XfDs, with newpage patrol and db-tagging, or a mixture of both. There's no other way to really learn the deletion policy. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
They need to specalize in a few things and deletion is a good one to have but is not nessecary. More important than being in a Wiki project --St.daniel ^talk 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important (this is an easy task, no problem learning about it after adminship. )≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. I'd rather look for evidence of ability to learn and indicators that they would read through policy before carrying out process. Of course, if the candidate states that they want adminship explicitly to delete stuff and they have no experience in the deletion process, that's pretty much an automatic oppose. - Banyan Tree 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. DebateKid 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important - Knowledge of the processes on Wikipedia are required to actually delete something. Easy to learn, so it wouldn't be at the top of the list of factors to look at. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Should already have had some practice making obvious, early non-admin closures on TfD for instance. —davidh.oz.au 05:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not very important, but relevant. Deletion Quality 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Of medium importance. This falls under the broader categories of familiarity with policy and ability to mediate conflicts, since that's essentially what the deletion process is all about. Knowing policy and conflict resolution skills are the most important things to look for, and whether they're found in a user's involvement in deletion process, or whether their found elsewhere in a user's contributions is not of great importance.128.220.212.139 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important if and only if the candidate indicates intent to participate in deletion processes. There are plenty of admin tasks which don't involve hitting the delete button, and if the candidate doesn't want to do so initially they can learn later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important but only because deletion affects the quality of the encyclopedia more directly than any other administrative task. Decision-making skill is more important here than in any other area. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important, this is an important admin duty that can have affects on not just the content of the project, but the contributors. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - a demonstration of knowledge is probably required, but not necessarily experience. Waggers 13:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. If the user wants to get into deletions, s/he should read up on policies before doing so. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of time on Wikipedia

Important (although I see little difference between 6 months and infinity) Pascal.Tesson
Very important --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite important, although that distinction is lessening. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. (relatively) El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. I prefer to use edit counts as a determiner of experience because a person could make an account and do very little for six months, yet it would still say the user has 6 months of experience. Captain panda 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Depends on the individual. Some have been here for ages and haven't learnt a lot. Some have been here a few months and learnt a lot. Sustained contribution is also important, as on-off patterns of contributions might be a problem. Carcharoth 14:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but not critical. As long as they show a grasp of how the various areas work, and as long as they have a good grasp of applicable policies and guidelines, the time they've been here is less imprtant than that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Minimum three months, and more is better. YechielMan 03:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. There are users who are suitable for adminship after two months, and those not suitable for adminship after two years. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairly important. I would not support a candidate below the 3 month mark. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. I'd like to think that users may be faster to learning the inner-workings of Wikipedia faster than others. Certainly I don't think that the fact that they haven't been around for 3 months yet (applying after 2) would hinder them if they were a good candidate. Sure, you could say that after 3 months they would have enough experience to be an admin, however I don't believe that experience and time go hand in hand. Aquatics 15:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not nearly as important as demonstrated familiarity with policies and processes (which can be determined by examining edits, responses to questions, block log, etc). A very experienced editor with very short tenure may be a banned user evading a block, so this is not a blanket denial of the importance of having been here a while. 6 months to a year is usually plenty of time. -- nae'blis 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Threshold. Beyond a low amount, more is not really significant. Active time only, and recent inactivity can outweigh older activity. Someone active for a few months five years ago and inactive since that came back just last month needs more current activity. GRBerry 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairly important but not critical - Like most people, I don't think I would support someone with less than 3 months, but after that I don't think it's an issue. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Threshold. Important if below ~two months, irrelevant above that. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not critical, but a minimum time is desirable. Reversely, patience to accept a nomination even after the usual threshold(s) is a bonus. Phaedriel - 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends. If a user has been here for two years, but all they edited during that time was their user page, I would not support. If however, a user had been here for two months, had gained over 10,000 edits to different sections of Wikipedia, and appeared to have knowledge of policy, I would support. Acalamari 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important as a factor, not as a hard threshold. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. I like to see experience gained through a lot of editing and maintenance for many months. Impatience shown, such as trying for adminship too soon or announcing very early on "I want to be an admin", is a warning flag for me. Antandrus (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Important -- there's a lot to learn about here, so I want to see admin candidates that have contributed for a good while with plenty of edits. Quality & breadth of contributions, however, trump quantity any day. — Scientizzle 05:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Worthless to me. See my comments about edit count. Vassyana 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Secondary metric. The value of measures such as time on Wikipedia and edit count is in providing a meaningful way to determine if the user's goals are compatible with the projects and if they possess the skills and knowledge needed for positive interaction with the rest of the community. Length of time is much less important than how the time was used. --Allen3 ^talk 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
important but less so than edit count and a willingness to work and negotiate with others. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Familiarity with policies and community must be shown, however. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, this indicates experience Samuel
Unimportant. You could learn everything in a year or 2 months. Its a matter of understanding the basics. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important in that we need some data to evaluate the person. More than 6 months is definitely enough, less than 2 months probably not. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant, learning the ropes is not hard and depends on how active the particular editor is. --Vaishu2 08:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Completely unimportant. Adminship is no big deal, and no one should be opposed just because they haven't been around for years. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Worth Considering but not vital--St.daniel ^talk 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Length of time with will not tell you anything that should not have been clear from other criteria. DanielDemaret 09:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but not in all cases. An excellent candidate with 4 months experience, is better than a poor candidate with 10 months of such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important in that editors need a body of work with which to evaluate a candidate. Since the sort of edits that shed light on if an candidate has admin-esque qualities take more time than the bot-assisted edits that ramp up counts, this normally means I oppose new users with less than 2 months experience and won't support those with less than three. - Banyan Tree 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Moderate DebateKid 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - It wouldn't be very high on the list. Length of time may show the possible level of familiarity with the project, but people learn at different rates. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really important. —davidh.oz.au 06:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Least important. I haven't even been on that long. Deletion Quality 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important simply because constructive social interaction is the most important quality necessary in a successful admin. Without a several-month-long record of substantial interaction with Wikipedia, we will have little evidence upon which to judge the user's socialization to Wikipedia norms, ability to interact constructively with other users, and general patterns of behavior, especially when under stress.128.220.212.139 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important (I can't imagine too many circumstances under which I'd support someone who'd been here 3 days), but it wouldn't make a real difference whether someone had been here 4 months or 4 years. If the candidate has a sufficient history to paint a good picture of their judgment and ability, that's all that really matters. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Only slightly important. If I had to choose between somebody who'd edited a thousand articles in two months, or somebody who'd made a thousand edits to only a dozen closely related articles over the course of a year, I would consider the newbie to be a more experienced editor. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Mildly important, with a diminishing rate of return (even more so then edit counts). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. They need to have edited enough to demonstrate trustworthiness, but that can be done in a matter of weeks. Waggers 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Would be leary of supporting someone with less than 3 months' experience. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit count

Not a great indicator but low edit count -> bad. Pascal.Tesson
Not important as long as it's not extreme (<3,000) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since when is having fewer than 3,000 edits "extreme"? Would you reject candidates with fewer than 3,000 edits, a status shared by the vast majority of Wikipedia and many admins? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Not a great indicator, but it is useful for separating the obviously unexperienced candidates out. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant (relatively). El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - dedication. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant but not important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. See my reasons above. Captain panda 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important, unless very low. Patterns and specifics are more important than raw count. Carcharoth 14:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Experience isn't measured by edit count. Pea ceNT 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant but not important. A very low count gives fewer examples of how they work, and therefore any mis-steps are magnified accordingly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important but just as a broad indicator, nothing more. User:Everyking is not an admin; enough said. My minimum is about 2,000 edits, and more is better. YechielMan 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why is 2,000 edits a magic number? Is a user with 2100 edits invariably more qualified than one with 1900? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As a developer of an edit counter, I'll say it is unequivocally unimportant. They're interesting tidbits, but in no way reflect a candidate's ability to be an effective administrator. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not a great indicator of ability or experience. The areas in which the user is most active are more important. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that this is any sort of indicator for experience or the ability to handle situations / adminship. A low level of edits may indicate problems, but a user with 2000 edits could have more experience and be more qualified than a person with 5000. Don't leave it all to the edit counts. Aquatics 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Count is not important except insofar as it fails to display familiarity with policies and processes. Once you're at about 1000, that's plenty for most users, unless they're largely automated edits/reversions. -- nae'blis 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Threshold. Also, edit counts in the area of administrative interest. Some interested in clearing the CSD backlog for images had better have a body of edits in IfD, Image talk, and Image areas... GRBerry 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Not a meaningful metric. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - as with the time spent on the project it's a threshold; unless their edit count is very low <1000 then it's not a problem. Some people are slower editors than others. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant, if taken in context with other qualities like policy knowledge. Raw numbers by themselves are meaningless. Phaedriel - 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. I would support a user with more than 2,000 edits as long as their edits were not limited to one or two sections of Wikipedia. Acalamari 17:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant, and harmful as a criterion. The quality of edits is far more important than the quantity, and the fact that so many commenters on RFA follow this criterion means that only a certain self-selecting subset of users will ever try to become an admin.

As a thought experiment, suppose there's a user who makes one edit per day, every day for a year, but these edits are very well-thought out and beneficial to WP, and clearly required a lot of reading and thinking before they were made. Some examples would be saying the right words to calm a dispute, providing an insightful analysis of policy, or adding well-referenced scholarly content to an article. If this user then nominated themselves for admin, I would support this user and their 366 edits. Those who support limited editcountitis, like "anything over 2000 edits is okay" or "anything over 1000 edits is okay", should consider this hypothetical candidate, as well as the fact that our long-time admins who were promoted with 500 edits are doing just fine.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Time on the project and quality of the edits is more important than a strict count, but some minimum threshold is necessary. Antandrus (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Meaningless without context as the raw number gives no hint about the quality of work. — Scientizzle 05:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Utterly worthless to me. What some people get by the 500th edit, others never grasp after 5000. A vandal-fighter is going to rack up an impressive edit count in very short order, while a cautious writer is going to lag far behind. Metrics are not a replacement for reasoned judgement. Vassyana 08:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Secondary metric. The value of measures such as time on Wikipedia and edit count is in providing a meaningful way to determine if the user's goals are compatible with the projects and if they possess the skills and knowledge needed for positive interaction with the rest of the community. What was done with the edits is much more important than the number of times and individual hit the save button. --Allen3 ^talk 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
important - a raw number is a bt of a no-brainer to get started. Anyone here wil know how much experience 1k, 4k, 10k translates to, unless the candidate has gone really overboard with mass automated edits. Also, more edits equals more opportunity for voters to get an idea of candidates. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. I think this is obvious. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but edits made to pages like Sandboxes and User pages need to be taken into account. Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Pointless. If they understand the basics and more, their good. It doesn't take 4000 mainspace edits to understand Wikipedia. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important as long as it is at least a few hundred. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important as long as it is reasonable. Edit count cannot be used to judge quality. --Vaishu2 08:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Completely unimportant. Adminship is no big deal; it shouldn't be necessary to spend your entire life editing Wikipedia just to pass RfA. (Remember, some people have lives off-wiki...) Plus, edit count statistics are biased in favour of those who use VandalProof or do a lot of RC patrol (and therefore make a lot of small edits) rather than those who spend their time making major edits to articles. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
>2,000 qould say un-important but it is good to have a measure of how consistent their edits are. --St.daniel ^talk 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
An edit count will not tell you anything that should not have been clear from other criteria. Edit content, maybe, but not edit count. DanielDemaret 09:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important, as a measure of commitment to the project. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Only really an issue if extremely low (eg. 75) Remember: It's the content which matters. Gutworth 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but only per Jossi above. - Banyan Tree 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. DebateKid 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - Edit count can be used to show level of activity per day/month. This directly relates to #Length of time on Wikipedia. Someone with 1000 edits and one with 8000 edits may edit at the same rate, but one has been here longer. Just because someone has lower activity doesn't mean they won't be a good admin, it just shows they won't be active as much. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Edit count is not an indicator of quality. —davidh.oz.au 06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Relevant. Not that much a factor, but just a few edits is going overboard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deletion Quality (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Not nearly as important as length of time active. Somewhat useful as a level of activity indicator. People with gigantic edit counts are usually those who engage in repetitive cleanup tasks with little or no substantive content involved: vandal reversion, minor cleanup, bot running, general maintenance. These are not generally issue which involve substantive interaction with community members, and thus are not indicative of how they will act in their most important capacities as an admin: conflict resolution, mediation of disputes, reaching consensus, etc.128.220.212.139 01:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There must at least be enough that a good, comprehensive picture can be seen of how the person operates. Beyond that, I'll take quality over quantity anyday. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what their edits are like, of course. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Mildly Important, but with a diminishing rate of returns, shows desire to contribute and levels of dedication. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - They need to have edited enough to demonstrate trustworthiness, but that can only be measured by quality of edits, not quantity. Waggers 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. I remember (and I haven't been on the 'pedia that long), when the "standard" RfA edit count was around 2000; now the de facto count is much higher. This is insanity. We should be looking at the quality of the contributions, not the number of them. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prior blocks

Very important Pascal.Tesson
Very important --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very, very important. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. (within reason, time and severity-wise) El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important, especially the reasons behind them (and if they have been rescinded). Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important when looking at reasons. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Captain panda 12:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. But this is basic stuff. If a block was a long time ago, was for minor stuff when inexperienced, and the candidate acknowledges the mistake and is reformed, no problem. If the block was for really bad stuff, then there should have been a ban anyway. Only important if relevant. And remember, someone with no blocks can still "turn bad", and admins are often blocked as well. I think it is more important that behaviour does not change. You don't want people being all meek and polite, passing RfA, and then turning into aggressive admins that just manage to avoid being blocked. There are better ways of judging a candidate's temperament than their block log, though a block log is a good starting point. Carcharoth 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. People screw up, we shouldn't let an error in the past come back and haunt them in their RfAs. Pea ceNT 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what the blocks were for and whether they learned from them. Everyone makes mistakes, and as long as improvement is shown following a block, and the blocks weren't too recent, relevant but not as important. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends. If the candidate explains what happened, I might let it go. YechielMan 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - Carcharoth put it better than I could. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the block, and whether it was legitimate or not. Usually important. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the nature of the block. 3RR, edit warring, disruption - usually bad. Minor stuff when inexperienced - can be excused. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not as important as you would like to think it would be. Prior blocks may be what turns a user around into something that is 10 times better than what they were before. If a user learns from his or her mistakes through the use of a block, then it shouldn't necessarily be held against them. Of course, if they've been blocked for vandalism a few times, I'd have a few questions of my own ;) Aquatics 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Usually important, but only valid blocks from a relatively recent timeframe should be held against the candidate. On the other hand, it would help if all candidates explained all entries in their blocklog up front, just to forestall speculation. -- nae'blis 18:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Minimal importance, if old. Important, if recent. GRBerry 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important, but kneejerk reactions should be avoided. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Varies. Must be analyzed in context. Phaedriel - 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Varies. If the user has been blocked multiple times in the three months prior to a nomination, I would definitely not support; but if a user had only been blocked once or twice, those blocks weren't too serious, and the candidate mentioned them on their RfA, I would easily support. I myself was blocked for 3 hours for 3RR back in December, and I disclosed that information on my RfA. No one opposed me for it. Acalamari 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It depend on the block, but blocks worry me. It's not that hard to be a contributor here without ever getting blocked. Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important -- each situation will need its own contextual review, but prior blocks are red flags. — Scientizzle 05:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important; prior blocks may make me cautious and check the candidate more thoroughly, but just the fact that a user was blocked is a poor reason for opposition. Kusma (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
important- can be a pointer to potential problems.
Very important. Except in exceptional circumstances (haha), this should practically disqualify a user. We have no shortage of potential admins who don't have a history of policy violation. -- `Rmrfstar
Very important, rarely would I support someone with a Prior block Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Block signal that something needs to be considered closely. Unreasonable blocks and blocks far in the past are not a problem; other blocks need a very good explanation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. --Vaishu2 08:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Someone who's had a lot of blocks for edit-warring does not have the character to make a good admin. However, I haven't seen a lot of candidates whose block history concerns me. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Vital but only with valid blocks --St.daniel ^talk 00:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the block and the reasons for the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Should be taken in context Gutworth 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. The candidate better have an excellent explanation. - Banyan Tree 05:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairly important. DebateKid 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
'Important, but - There's a thing called redemption. This mainly depends on the reason for the block, and the number. Minor violations could be overlooked. Major ones will raise concerns. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important but it depends on my opinion of the blocker's judgement, the blockee's goodwill, and the case in question. —davidh.oz.au 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Deletion Quality 17:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important as an indicator of the user's socialization into Wikipedia norms. Depends on what the block is for and how long ago it occurred. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake and be forgiven for it. One block for 3RR a year or two ago ought not be held against an otherwise good candidate. Blocks for things like vandalism, personal attacks, or the like are more serious. So, it depends on what the block is for, how long ago it happened, and whether the person is a repeat offender.128.220.212.139 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Depends how long ago it was, and whether the candidate has owned up to the mistake and not repeated it. Everyone screws up once in a while, but recent misbehavior with no indication of apology or correction is very much a concern. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. There are people who violate policy all the time and have never been blocked, and there are people who have been blocked for enforcing policy. You can't rely on a user's block log to determine whether they would be a good admin without a (foolish) blanket assumption that all previous admins were good ones. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important that they be disclosed and explained. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important but total forgiveness should always be an option if the user can demonstrate that they are now trustworthy. Waggers 13:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important if old, very important if newer. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experience with some form of Wikipedia maintenance

Very important Pascal.Tesson
Very important --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Captain panda 12:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends, doesn't it? If you need admins to clear backlogs, then it is important. If you need admins to block troublemakers, then it is not important. Honestly, having these functions tied together might be a good idea, but are they both important? The question should really be, "if the candidate intends to be involved in Wikipedia maintenance, now or in the future, will they ensure they have enough experience before getting involved?" Ditto for blocking people. If RfA want to say that candidates need to be prepared to do both (blocking and routine maintenance), then that needs to be made much clearer. Carcharoth 14:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, as much admin work is in areas of maintenance. However, I think as long as they are willing to learn the processes, a lack of experience in those areas shouldn't be a huge hindrance to an RfA. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. All backlogs, including AIV, can be thought of as maintenance tasks. I equate this question with the hackneyed "needs the tools" phrase. YechielMan 04:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Some form, but not all forms. Somewhat important. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Only if their goal is to work on backlogs/maintenance tools that require the admin tools. See my answer to the "needs the tools" question below, which is also vague. -- nae'blis 18:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
All tools are used for maintenance, so this matters. Which areas depends on which tools they want to use. GRBerry 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. This is better than just requiring "familiarity with AFD". It's fine if a candidate doesn't do AFD, but it's good if he knows his way around some process like stubsorting or RFC or whatnot. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - if they intend to do maintenance work. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Phaedriel - 14:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, in agreement with YechielMan. Acalamari 17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but don't try to measure this with edit counts. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important -- it's what people with mops do, right? — Scientizzle 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
important. part of the job cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Admins are not janitors; they are regular, albeit trusted, users. In principle, every decent editor should have "the mop", whether or not he's spent his time on maintenance projects.
Important. Much work is maintenance related, but not all. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. --Vaishu2 08:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
More important than article-writing. XfDs and so on are far more relevant to the admin tools. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. That is (or should be) the main task of sysops. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but only in relation to their candidate statement. I can't think of a reason to try for adminship that doesn't involve a form of maintenance, but candidates should not be opposed for not being familiar with areas in which they have no intention of involving themselves. - Banyan Tree 05:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. DebateKid 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important - Most tools gained from adminship is for assisting in maintenence. Note I said most. There are some which could possibly be used for editing in general. I don't know which ones, though. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. —davidh.oz.au 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. Depends on what maintence you mean. Deletion Quality 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really important. Anyone can perform Wikipedia maintenance, and need not be an admin to do it. While admins are expected to contribute to maintenance, none of the tasks are so complex as to warrant some litmus-test of enthusiasm for maintenance. The most important roles for an admin involve creating constructive interaction between users, and maintenance, while valuable, would not serve as evidence of that.128.220.212.139 01:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty important. Admin work is maintenance work, previous experience in such things may give a very good indicator of whether the candidate's suited to that kind of thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
A user's willingness to edit (or administrate) outside his or her own interests is... crucial. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Important, admin work is almost all maintaining, and we don't need admins who don't want to work! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important - Wikipedia adminship is a form of maintenance. Would-be admins should demonstrate their willingness to carry out some of the many thankless tasks that are required to keep the project going. Waggers 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Should have some sort of experience in this area. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demonstrated need for the tools

Not important as pretty much any sound editor could use them Pascal.Tesson
Important. No reason to waste our time voting on RFA's if they don't plan to use them. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Should show some openness and enthusiasm, but seeing that every legitimate should, in theory, have them, siding with neutral. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. El_C 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. Daniel Bryant 08:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant but not important. Camaron1 | Chris 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Captain panda 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - more important is a willingness to help out and a willingness to learn and be shown how to do things, rather than just do things the way they want to do things. Does that count as a need for the tools? :-) Carcharoth 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Qualified and trusted editors should be given the tools. Period. Pea ceNT 14:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Relevant but not important. As Carcharoth wrote, "more important is a willingness to help out and a willingness to learn and be shown how to do things." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends what the admin is trying to do. Basically, the answer to question 1 should mention at least three administrative pages, to show me that the candidate is not a close-minded specialist. YechielMan 04:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really. If they use the tools once a year, it is one thing less I have to do. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. PeaceNT said it. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that you'd need to demonstrate the 'need' for the tools, per se. Perhaps the want to utilize the tools effectively is a better phrase? Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Any demonstrated need is sufficient in my view, which is not exactly what you're trying to ask here, I don't think. A person whose only interest on Wikipedia is stub sorting doesn't need the tools; however someone who is frustrated by being unable to view deleted pages, or edit protected templates, or move blocked pages, has that 'need'. My threshold is very low here, but this is self-correcting at present since no one without need will go through the meat-grinder that is RFA. -- nae'blis 18:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Demonstrated plans to use the tools enter the risk-reward equation. Low plans to use may sink if risk factors are present. GRBerry 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Not using tools = not abusing tools. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant - Do all users need to be able to move pages? Not really, but I'm sure there would be big backlogs if only admins could (Move log). James086^{Talk | Email} 08:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Completely unimportant. RfA must judge, above anything else, the trustworthiness of the candidate. Quoting a discussion at RfA talk, it's like giving a friend the keys to your house because you trust him; he may never even use them, but at least you presume he won't break into your home without a good reason. And if the need arises, you trust he'll make good use of them. That's it. Phaedriel - 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. As Phaedriel said, trust is more important. "This user does not need the tools" is no more a good reason to oppose as "I do not like this user" or "This user has userboxes on their user page" both are. Acalamari 17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Any experienced user encounters situations where they could use the tools sometimes; what's the sense in denying admin tools because they wouldn't be used often enough? It's not we're going to run out of admin bits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant -- past level of involvement in sysop related areas doesn't determine future such involvement. As said above, every little bit helps. — Scientizzle 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Depends. Need for the tools is a good reason to support (think template editors), but absence of a strong need is a poor reason to oppose. Kusma (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. adminship is no big deal right? :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. It can't hurt to have too many admins and some of them not active all the time. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. It doesn't matter whether or not they use the tools. The fact is they can use them when they need them without having to go to someone else for help. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 22:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Everybody can use the tools. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant - • The Giant Puffin • 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - adminship is no big deal. However, a user should demonstrate in their answer to Q1 that they know what kind of tasks admins are expected to carry out; sometimes there are candidates who don't fully seem to understand what an admin does. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Mildly important if need tools for AIV for example than vital. --St.daniel ^talk 00:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. If a person has no use for the tool, then why bother to give them? The title "admin" then risks becoming an award, an honorific title, an elite sub-group that people look up to is created, instead of the title just the giving you the burden of an extra chore. DanielDemaret 09:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When someone passes a RFA, they are "taking the mope." Part of being an admin is using one's tools to improve Wikipedia. Gutworth 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important Gutworth 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important but the candidate should be able to state a valid reason for adminship. "I've gotten tired of asking others for help with uncontroversial page moves" is a perfectly good reason. Statements such as, "I want to edit templates," which I've actually seen at RFA, indicate that the candidate may not be familiar enough with what an admin does to be handed the mop. - Banyan Tree 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. DebateKid 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important - If they don't need it, don't give it to them. Demonstrated need would basically be constant participation in tasks which require admin assistance. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Any editor can be an administrator if they are honest. Proving their honesty is the hard part. Proving their need is not required. —davidh.oz.au 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that important. Deletion Quality 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. The only real need for the tools is in performing blocks, page moves, and deletions. Very few users can demonstrate a *need* for them. What the user should demonstrate is worthiness of them, or the character to assume that privledge/responsibility.128.220.212.139 02:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not too important. If an excellent template programmer who's generally responsible and mature is constantly having to ask admins to make edits to protected templates, and just wants the bit so he can do it himself, why not let him? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
More frequent use of "the tools" would make occasional (and unavoidable) mistakes more forgivable. Of course, the same could be said for general editing. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Mildly Important, more so the willingness to use the tools. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Nobody needs to edit Wikipedia at all, let alone be an admin. Waggers 13:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat important. I interpret this as the user's willingness to take the role of admin, not necessary do something with it. There's a responsibility involved in just being an admin. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Familiarity with admin-related policies

(That is, the blocking policy, the deletion policy, the protection policy and so on.)

Utterly crucial. Though common sense and an awareness of WP:IAR in addition. Carcharoth 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Pivotal for the basics; unimportant for the codified detail. El_C 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, generally part of necessary experience. Camaron1 | Chris 20:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. As most admin abilities have to do with these policies, a good understanding of them is important. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. A misjudging of a rule in a major situation can cause some serious problems. Captain panda 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. However, I can usually judge this indirectly from other criteria. Thus, I assume that RC patrollers know the blocking policy (or will learn it), and AFD regulars know the deletion policy, and Newpage patrollers know the CSDs. YechielMan 04:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Duh. They don't have to soak themselves into those processes, but they should know how they work. Very important. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. We can't have admins running around blocking without knowing the blocking policy. Aquatics 16:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting; we generally judge this as important, but how do we measure it thus far? -- nae'blis 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. I measure it by looking at edits in related activities - thus lack of such edits becomes insufficient evidence that they really know the relevant policies. If push comes to shove, test cases can be presented. GRBerry 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. A candidate need not have read any of them. Once promoted, the admin should read e.g. the blocking policy before blocking people, but if he focuses on e.g. protection instead it's okay if he doesn't know blocking policy. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - but only the ones they plan on using. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Necessary, if not a requirement to be deeply familiar with every word of every policy. At least, basic knowledge of the administrative area of interest is acceptable. Phaedriel - 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's important to at least be familiar with the admin-policies you want to work with. No one wants an admin who blocks people but has no understanding of the blocking policy. Acalamari 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Don't take your driving test until you can drive a car without running into a ditch. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important, if only to prevent big mistakes early in the admin period, but nuances can be learned in-progress. Sysops are expected to be knowledgable to newbies as well, so a strong foundation in Wikipedia policies, guidelines and norms is a definite good thing. — Scientizzle 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. A candidate does not need to know all the nitty-gritty. However, they definately need to show enough self-motivation and interest to clearly understand the basics. Vassyana 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important, though can read as you go. Best of most of us with impulse-control problems read first...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. We must make sure that admins know their own power. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important in that admins must know what they cannot do. Also very hard to evaluate. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Vaishu2 08:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. (This criterion can be met primarily through good answers to the questions.) Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the most important --St.daniel ^talk 00:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Essential. People will expect admins to know this. If an admin does not, there is a risk of distrust of all admins. DanielDemaret 09:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial, pivotal, and any other adjective stated by my peers above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. It's nearly impossible to determine this for someone who is not already an admin, so I'd much rather look at interactions, ability to learn, general level of sanity, etc, so I can be moderately confident that they will do their homework before they carry out their first block/deletion/etc, will apologize if they screw up and do a better job the next time. However, if the candidate's statement indicates that they will immediately be heavily involved in one of these, I expect relevant editing experience, e.g. AIV, XFD, tagging speedies. - Banyan Tree 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important DebateKid 00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important - Admins can't do their job if they don't know what the job entails. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. —davidh.oz.au 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. Hence, the admin reading list. Deletion Quality 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
An absolute must, no exceptions. If the user does not understand policy, how could they possibly hope to enforce it correctly with the tools they're given? The most acrimonious disputes, tearing at the social fabric of the Wikipedia project, arise from abuse of admin powers. Potential admins must know these by heart.128.220.212.139 02:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty important to know at least the general spirit of them, and where to find them. Having every one memorized word-for-word is less important, they can be looked up at the click of a mouse if some detail is unclear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably more important than anything else. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Important. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important but a bonus for admin candidates, vital for admins themselves. Once granted admin status a person should familiarise themselves with the relevant policies before taking any action - but they don't need to do that beforehand. Waggers 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Should at least read the pages before RFA. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Familiarity with policies in general

Important - but less so than the admin-related ones. Those with enough experience should hopefully already be aware, or at least should be able to learn on the job. Carcharoth 15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. El_C 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, generally part of necessary experience. Camaron1 | Chris 20:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite important. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but not as much as the admin-related policies. A willingness to learn them is important, however.
Important, but not crucial. As long the basics are known, it is fine. Captain panda 01:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Helpful, but I don't really care much about that. YechielMan 04:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but it is not necessary to know every single word of policy out there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Beneficial to have prior to adminship, but it is something that can be picked up on the job. Shouldn't be a deciding factor. Aquatics 16:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, and generally demonstrated by lack of policy-related conflicts, blocks, reversions, quality edits, etc. -- nae'blis 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really all that important. We have way too many policies and we can't expect people to know all of them. As above. Besides, this criteria is nearly impossible to measure anyway. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - but as others have said, it's easy to find a policy and read it before applying it. I wouldn't support if they seemed to not know the important ones like those relating to WP:5P. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, desirable, but not decisive. Understanding that one must at least try to read a policy before taking a step that falls under it is more than enough. Phaedriel - 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe an admin should have at least a basic understanding of policies, but I think that everyone should be fully familiar with WP:NOT, and more importantly, WP:CIVIL; as those two policies are about what Wikipedia is not, and why civility is a requirement, not a choice. Acalamari 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but almost redundant. Everyone should eventually be familiar with policies. This is approximately equivalent to saying "newbies and trolls shouldn't run for admin". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but you can learn a lot on the job. The candidate should know the major ones, such as the pillars, and understand copyrights, and they should have a good big-picture view of what they're all for. Antandrus (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. I don't expect a nominee to know all the ins and outs. I do expect them to understand the rules. Vassyana 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, good idea to get an idea of the bigger picture and all that. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Important as a prerequisite to fully understanding admin-related policies. — Scientizzle 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Admins should be experienced enough to screw as little up as possible. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very,very important, there's no way I would support someone who lacked this Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but difficult to measure. Detailed knowledge is not necessary, but the ability to find details when needed is important. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. --Vaishu2 08:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Useful but not vital --St.daniel ^talk 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. Neutrality^talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Highly important. Admins should be conversant with policies and have a solid understanding of the principles upon which these have been developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. WP:5P is the basis for all other policies, including the admin ones, and a candidate must have demonstrably drank the Kool Aid on these. This is very general, but it's usually clear when a candidate's stance doesn't align with the pillars. Knowing chapter and verse of the derivative policies is not important. - Banyan Tree 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important DebateKid 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important - I just heard of WP:5P from Banyan, but this is basically what an admin should know, as that would be what I expect in regular editors as well. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important. If would also be nice if they had some experience in helping to create policies and guidelines. —davidh.oz.au 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Relevant. Deletion Quality 17:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Familiarity with policy is a must, guidelines not so much. If an admin does not understand NPOV or ATT they will end up creating discord and acrimony. Same goes for things like CIVIL. These are the ideas that most Wikipedia conflicts revolve around. It would bizarre not to expect an admin to knows these well before sending them off to resolve disputes and deal with problem users.128.220.212.139 02:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important to have a good, practical understanding of the big ones in terms of the content policies(NPOV, NOR, V, N, etc.) For the conduct-related ones (CIVIL, NPA, AGF, 3RR, etc.), I'm more concerned that the person shows a history of abiding by the spirit of such policies rather than being able to quote the letter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Important, but this should also include an understanding of which policies/guidelines outweigh others: verifiability is more important than notability, copyright policy more important than 3RR, and so on. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Fairly Important. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important, more important than knowing the admin policies. Otherwise it's a case of trying to run before you can walk and we don't want that. Waggers 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Should have some familiarity, should read some of the policy pages, if not all (there are many). But complete familiarity only comes with time. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age of the candidate

Not important. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. It can be a problem to have admins who are minors attend to certain issues (legally). Better structure needs to be in place before I consider it unimprotant. Also, the misconception and rejection (often under the guise of ageism) of the notion that life experience plays no role, is dubious. Greater scuriny needs to be placed on younger admins hopefuls due to the chances (statistically) for these developments. El_C 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with El C in this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. It is maturity that counts, and that is not dependant on age. Captain panda 01:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but not everything. Daniel Bryant 03:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer someone who is old enough to drive a car (16 where I come from), as that signifies trust with a dangerous tool, albeit where the consequences of error are more serious. Of course, since we don't ask about age in RFA, I have never been able to use it as a factor. YechielMan 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Pea ceNT 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I've seen 12-year-olds that are more mature than so-called "adults". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
important in the sense that although there are indeed "12-year-olds that are more mature than so-called adults", there's no question they're exceptions. In that respect, I think it's natural to be careful when promoting teenagers. (without, of course, opposing them on that sole basis). Pascal.Tesson
Slightly important. Would not trust 8 year old, for example. – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. I think age should be looked at, and some caution should be placed on making people below 13 an admin. However, I think looking at someones maturity and experience on Wikipedia is more important. Camaron1 | Chris 09:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No importance whatsoever. A qualified canidate is a qualified candidate, regardless of age. Let's not be discriminatory. Aquatics 16:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Mu. If a user is immature, that will be detectable whether or not they voluntarily disclose their physical age. If they are not, then it is not a problem. -- nae'blis 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important as long as the issues are not age-related (eg. legally under-age stuff and people being unable to recognise that the problem might be their age and lack of experience - be honest, when you were young(er), did you ever think - "oops, maybe I'm too young here"?) Just wait until a 106-year-old admin wheel-wars with a 6-year-old admin... ("I have a century's head-start on you, sonny-boy" - "yeah, right, gramps, drop dead. Oops.") :-) Carcharoth 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Maturity, not age. Plenty of immature people that are fully adult by the laws of the relevant jurisdictions. Fewer mature people that are not adult, but either way, maturity counts. GRBerry 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Entirely irrelevant. Maturity does matter. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important - Or I wouldn't have accepted my RfA. There are some minors unsuitable for adminship just as there are some adults (although I would guess that the percentage of minors unsuitable is greater than that of adults). James086^{Talk | Email} 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairly unimportant. We've had not only admins in their 12-14s, but bureaucrats even, and very good ones to match. As stated, it's maturity we need to aim for, not the age in the ID. Phaedriel - 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. I want to see experience, not age. As long as a user learns from their mistakes, is civil, experienced, and can be trusted, I would be happy to support that user, whether they are 8, 88, or 108. If you oppose a candidate on their age only, then you might as well oppose them over their race, gender, or nationality if they have disclosed them. Acalamari 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Maturity is important, age is unimportant. You may need to check that a young candidate is uncommonly mature for their age before supporting -- but opposing on the basis of age alone is, well, ageist. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can be important. There are good young candidates, and I've supported a bunch of them, but I like candidates with some decades of life experience. It's crazy to suppose that life experience counts for nothing. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. It is maturity and not calendar age that is important. --Allen3 ^talk 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Maturity is what counts; age is irrelevant.--cj | talk 14:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
tricky - age is often unknown anyway...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant, but often a factor in overall maturity (which is paramount). — Scientizzle 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Maturity not age. (I should know :) ) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important: even better, superfluous. Other, more fair qualities represent a user's responsibility and trustworthiness. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Per Teckwiz. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Maturity is the important criterion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Would this be in violation of WP:CHILD? Real96 05:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think that a mature minor would be more mature than to convey such a persona. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not important. Young people face so much discrimination on the Internet... let's not take it to Wikipedia! --Missmarple 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant - • The Giant Puffin • 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. I have never disclosed my age on Wikipedia, and I don't see why anyone else does either. Users should be judged on the quality of their contributions and on their interaction with other users, not on any factors outside Wikipedia. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Worthless agree with walton. --St.daniel ^talk 00:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant, and in any case you will never know what the age of an editor is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not even worth mentioning. I've meet many 13 year olds with more maturity than most adults. Gutworth 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
?, I usually don't have the slightest idea how old other users are but I think El C makes sense above. - Banyan Tree 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Maturity only. DebateKid 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important - Ageism is a form of discrimination. It does not demonstrate mature behaviour. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Maturity however is far more important. —davidh.oz.au 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Least important. I agree with everything DavidHOzAu said. Deletion Quality 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. Maturity, not age, is what matters. Kaldari 19:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Unimportant. Real life qualifications and characteristics ought not come into play. Anyone can claim that they're any age online, so this would be a very fallible standard to begin with. What's more important is the user's demonstrated record of behavior. That's usually more than enough to discern a good from a bad candidate.128.220.212.139 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally unimportant. If the candidate shows so much maturity that they could lie about their age and be believed, who cares? Some people are great at it at 15, some people would be terrible at it at 50. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not important to their ability as an admin, although we need to be careful about legal issues as per El C. Waggers 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally unimportant. After all, on the internet, no one knows you're a dog. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Gets it" (is in tune with, and generally supports, how we do things here, and the goals of the project)

Very important. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify this criteria that I proposed, and my view on it... an admin that thinks that NPOV or NPA or NOR are bad ideas belongs at a different project, not this one, as those things are non negotiable, in my view. Different ideas about implementation are fine, good in fact, as that's how innovation happens, as are different views about different projects (non congruent views on how things ought to be on commons or mediawiki.org, for example, are fine for an admin here, but would be a downcheck for a steward candidate). But an admin has to embrace the core policies, not just say they are going to go along in order to gain adminship, in my view, and this is the most important factor of all, an admin that doesn't "get it" can cause a great deal of strife and harm. Hard to measure? Sure. But vital. And there have been some candidates that I perceived as not "getting it" and I opposed or withheld support on that basis. ++Lar: t/c 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends. We don't want a complete anarchist as an admin, but it's a good quality for candidates to have reservations about some policies, as it shows that they have analyzed it. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Weird question. An admin should have Wikipedia's core goals in mind, but to say that he has to support how things are done is stretching it. Too much of that, and Wikipedia's administrative corpus will stagnate due to the lack of new ideas. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Per Titoxd. -- nae'blis 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That's kinda subjective, isn't it? – Riana ^ऋ 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Difficult to quantify. Can be assessed as the new admin develops after RfA. "Getting it" can take a long time. Carcharoth 22:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Needs to get the goals of Wikipedia, but not to agree with all the currently accepted means to those goals. The goals of the entire foundation need not be supported, and it would be perfectly acceptable to have an admin that thinks one of the other projects shouldn't exist. GRBerry 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important but nigh-impossible to measure. >Radiant< 08:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If they plan on Ignoring any rules then definitely. But I doubt that there would be many eligible candidates that don't "get it". James086^{Talk | Email} 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If a nominee doesn't "get it", then it'd only become noticeable by hugely messing up, and it'll end up in a SNOWedly closed nomination. Of course it is desirable, non-negotiable even; however, we're dealing with such intimate beliefs that, until we're able to screen each candidate with ESP, there's no way to really apply this line of reason. Phaedriel - 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It's best to have the interests of Wikipedia at heart if you want to become an administrator. No one wants a user who is against those interests and ignores them all. Acalamari 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Important in a sense, but not stated very well. I generally agree with Titoxd and Radiant. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Essential. They shouldn't have to tow the status quo, but rather in-tune with the concept and practice of Wikipedia. Vassyana 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Essential. It is vital for an admin to understand and be in general agreement with Wikipedia's core policies and practices. --Allen3 ^talk 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking WRT NPOV, NOR etc, then yes, very important as this is where many conflicts arise and tough decisions have to be made. I must say the first thing that comes to mind in the phrasing of this question = "agrees with us" carries connotation of some clique or cabal (ooooh). cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm with GRBerry, clonish mirroring of Wikipedia norms can be managed by vandal reversion bots, only through the exchange of varying ideas can this project evolve. — Scientizzle 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Important, but how can you determine this? Captain panda 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Gets it" is important. Part of that is daring to disagree with the way some things are done around here :-) Kusma (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In agreement with everyone? No! Respectful and understanding: yes. -- Rmrfstar 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important,we wouln't want anyone who dosen't know how things are done blocking users and deleating pages. Samuel 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Too vague. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very important. (Obviously)--Vaishu2 08:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
X-tremely important. All administrators should get it. HaLoGuY007 11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Important - • The Giant Puffin • 11:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Too subjective, per Riana. I don't see this as a real criterion. Obviously someone who's completely "out of tune" with the project goals (i.e. sees it as an opportunity for social networking, or to push their personal point of view) is unlikely to get adminship, or even to mount a serious candidacy. Beyond that, it depends on users' own subjective views about Wikipedia. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Crucial. Neutrality^talk 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If an admin doesn't understand what they are doing, what's the point of being an admin? Gutworth 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Important. DebateKid 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important - How else is someone supposed to be a good editor here? - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Following consensus is important, but consensus can change and administrators should be willing to change too. —davidh.oz.au 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Important. Deletion Quality 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a measurable standard. It's essentially a popularity question: the user "get's it" if i like them; they don't "get it" if i don't like them. That's an unfair standard, and making it official would essentially legitimate turning RfA into a popularity contest. Since there is no way to garner evidence of a user getting it (i.e. by providing diffs of the user "getting it"--absurd!) this is a useless metric, especially when compared to the other, actual, measurable standards presented above.128.220.212.139 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- How about an excellent application of WP:IAR. It's generally used by admins but there's nothing to stop a non-admin applying it. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty tough to determine what's meant by this. If the person thinks we shouldn't be writing an encyclopedia around here, they're probably not the greatest fit for an admin (or, for that matter, an editor.) On the other hand, if they disagree with some methods we use to do so, and can present good, well-reasoned arguments why, that's not problematic. If anything, I'm more likely to support someone who doesn't show a continuous history of "following the herd", and shows great capacity to think independently. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very important. — CharlotteWebb 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
My personal requirements are: civil, dedicated, works well with others. Such a person probably "gets it". --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Wikipedia:Adminship survey

Categories: Inactive project pages