User:BlankVerse/adminship1

< User:BlankVerse/Other Subpages

My adminship criteria

Since I rarely vote at RFA, this page probably won't make much difference, but I hope that some potential administrators will see this page, as well as some of the regular RFA voters, and that what I've written here will affect their decisions.

The rationale behind my criteria

Before I start listing what my criteria are for adminship, I want to cover the reasons behind those criteria. Most of all it is to help select those editors who have a reasonably deep understanding of the rules, guidelines, and traditions of the Wikipedia, and who will apply those rules fairly and consistently. They should also be editors who will do their fair share of the grunt work that keeps the Wikipedia running such as patrolling Recent changes and doing maintenance on pages such as Copyright problems.

Finally, it should be someone who will be unlikely to abuse their position as an administrator. This last issue I think is extremely important because there is currently no effective way to discipline an administrator outside of an extremely lengthy Request for arbitration and so we are relying almost totally upon peer pressure to prevent admin misbehavior.

I think currently that there are too many editors becoming administrators who are not yet ready for the position, so I think we need to be more cautious about promoting editors to administrators. On the other hand, I also see some very arbitrary and capricious reasons for opposing some admins, as if the editor was just looking for any reason to oppose the RFA, and that disturbs me just as much.

The basics

I don't think that a Wikipedia editor can really have a good knowledge of the Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines, as well as some of the traditions of the Wikipedia without at least 2,000 edits and four months editing, but I would much prefer to see 3,000 edits and six months. The editing should also be well-rounded, and fairly evenly divided between editing articles, editing on Wikipedia namespace articles, and making comments on Talk pages. These criteria also allow enough time and edits to allow other editors to see how a potential admin interacts with other editors.

Nooks and crannies, plus mop and broom duty

Potential administrators should show that they have visited most of the nooks and crannies of the Wikipedia and are willing to do some of the tedious tasks involved in maintaining the Wikipedia, including at least 2/3rds of the following:

1. They should have some votes in all of the Wikipedia deletion processes including WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD.
2. They should have successfully nominated at least one article, category, or template for deletion (preferably all three)
3. They should have merged at least one pair of duplicate articles.
4. They should have reverted at least a dozen vandals or spammers (including following through on all the vandals recent edits and not just the articles that showed up on their Watchlist).
5. They should have uploaded at least five images.
6. They should have created at least five new articles (at least stubs, and not substubs).
7. At least one posting at: Village pump, Help desk, and Reference desk.
8. Welcomed at least a dozen new Wikipedia editors.
9. Archived one long discussion on a Talk page.

Bonus points for potential admins

There are, of course, bonus points for doing more tasks listed above, such as uploading multiple images, writing new articles, etc.

1. Filing an article WP:RFC that ends up stopping an edit war.
2. Reporting one major Vandalism in progress
3. Nominating someone else for a successful promotion to administrator.
4. Participating in at least one article improvement projects, such at the Article improvement drive or one of the Collaboration of the week.
5. Requesting a Peer review on an article that you have done substantial work on.
6. Requesting a Good article review on an article that you have done substantial work on.
7. Submitting an article as a Featured article candidate
8. Creating a new article that is then mentioned on Did you know? on the Main page.
9. Regular participation in one WikiProject
10. Participation in a Regional Notice Board
11. Creating a regular template, navigation box, or infobox that others start using.
12. Adding enough to a stub to make it a regular article.
13. Joining the Harmonious editing club
14. Adding a note to one of the Wikipedia in the media articles
15. Reported at least one copyright violation
16. Telling an editor that they have done good work
17. Receiving well-deserved kudos of another editor
18. Participation in one of the {{Active Wiki Fixup Projects}}
19. Creating and filling a new [[Wikipedia:Category|Category}}
20. Proposing, creating and then adding a new stub template to the appropriate articles
21. Editing any of the pages listed on {{opentask}}
22. Created at least a dozen redirects

Negatives for potential admins

Revert wars

In my opinion, there are NO excuses for being involved in prolonged edit wars. If anyone has had any blocks for violating WP:3RR, they will need to show at least one year of good behavior with steady editing before I will consider someone for adminship.

RFC

I realize that sometimes the filing of a WP:RFC is a preemptive strike by a difficult editor, but those will usually have very little support, and numerous editors speaking against the RFC. On the other hand, if there has been an RFC filed on an editor with over a half-dozen editors supporting the RFC, then that editor needs much greater scrutiny before they become an administrator.

The other side of the coin is filing trivial or unnecessary RFCs. If you've filed a RFC that has received little or no support, this is also a major warning sign.

Unsupported deletion nominations

If someone has filed numerous deletion requests that have not achieved consensus, they are just wasting people's time. It is an indication that either they do not understand Wikipedia Policies and guidelines, or that they are filing the deletion requests in violation of WP:POINT

Too much voting

Especially spending too much time at WP:AFD leaves much less time for doing anything else. Remember, Don't vote on everything.

Endlessly arguing a point in a vote or survey is also a worrying sign for me.

A couple of regrets

Just after one of the editors who I supported for admin was promoted, the editor was involved in the very juvenile shenanigans for April Fool's Day 2005. They have since settled down, but I thought that was extremely poor judgment on their part.

One of the editors that I opposed has continued to act more boldly than I think is prudent, especially in editing Wikipedia policy. I wish that I had been more forcefully in opposing that person's nomination.

Some of my philosophy on admins

Administrators should be held to a higher standard

1. Administrators are some of the most active editors on the Wikipedia.
2. Administrators are often the first person that a new editor will encounter.
3. Administrators are the most identifiable group of editors on the Wikipedia.
4. Administrators are the ones who administer the Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines so they need to show that they will follow those rules as well, and will not subvert or bend the rules.
5. Administrators are responsible for applying bans, deleting articles, and other important tasks, so they need to be trustworthy.

Some suggestions

Temporary admin desysoping

See my remarks on On misbehaving Wikipedia administrators.