76:: Candidates should be judged solely on their merits. Since admins are not imbued with any special privelege to have their opinions weigh any more heavily than others, it does not hurt either the inclusionist or the deletionist camp to have a deletionist or inclusionist candidate become an admin. Voting oppose or support because someone is inclusionist is silly, this is not a
112:: Such criteria have nothing to do with the candidate. Judge a candidacy based on the candidate, not on the people supporting or opposing. It disturbs me to see votes like "I'm opposing because I'm put off by xxx's support vote" or "yyy's oppose vote convinced me that I should support" or "Anyone that zzz hates must be a good guy". For instance
214:
Maybe the contributor has been active in fighting vandalism at RecentChanges. I set no real demand on participation in any, but it should be demonstrated that they know what
Knowledge is about. There should be some variation in the contributions, specialization is fine, but some contributions outside the field of specialization is also needed.
226:
is more important. Some candidates can honestly say that they have been able to avoid conflict. That's good, I will not hold that against them. I don't demand a battle scar. In most cases, such a user is one which I have had very little interaction with or have seen very little however, so that would
213:
with the project is important, but as I said above, is a function of more things than just number of edits and time spent. Has the contributor made some very good contributions to articles? Has the contributor been an active participant in debates and discussions (Village Pump, Deletion, and so on).
234:
run into conflicts, and it will be good to know that the users equipped with block-buttons can keep their head cool under fire. Also, it is not a really good thing to always dodge conflict, because when faced with trolls and vandals, a firm administrator is needed to put a stop to it. (This does
227:
mean I wouldn't vote in the RFA anyway. (Typically such RFAs for contributors with great contributions to articles but with little participation in the
Knowledge namespace where most of the conflicts take place are successful, but have very few votes, around 20, sometimes less.)
267:
Some admin candidates have foolishly vandalized something, or inserted some other nonsense due to boredome most likely, and when that happens, the RFA usually fails. I cut a little bit of slack because I don't want to make a too big distinguishment between those who get
242:
A candidate who is prone to making angry remarks at people who disagree with him or her is not such a good candidate. Some angry remarks or misplaced criticism are OK, everyone loses their cool occasionally, but such incidents should be the exception, not the rule.
80:
election. Another point is that people should be able to vote in line with their convictions on VFD, VFU, TFD, CFD and RFD, and not out of fear of receiving oppose votes on a possible future adminship request. Examples of the kind of vote which disturbs me is
184:
Now with that said, an "average" nominee would need something around 1500 edits, which means that a person with less than 500 almost certainly has too little, while one with over 3000 almost always has enough. But there is no barrier between 1499 and 1500.
276:
for deletion on April 1) in the past month won't knock my support vote away, a few "harmless" ones might however. A "harmful" incident (e.g. vandalizing a page with foul language to make an attack on someone) in the past month is more serious.
258:
is important, and admins must follow it. Now, these bad things go over, having a history of foul language in the past, and then having improved the behavior is possible. That means a delay to the adminship, not eternal banishment from it.
115:
is spurious reasoning, even though it was in the correct column. Another reason I dislike this kind of vote is that it damages the environment at
Knowledge, voting opposite of another user just for the sake of it seems to violate the
249:
Worse are cases of candidates who have made trolling comments, personal attacks, or used foul language at anybody, including people who have made trolling comments, personal attacks and foul language against
197:
is an objective criterion, and again it is a mistake to use a D&D like absolute guideline on it. In general, I would expect an admin nominee to have something around 2 months or 3 months.
246:
Candidates who aggressively challenge every oppose vote, rather than politely responding to them, are doing themselves a disservice. An admin must be able to take criticism.
173:
An editor who sometimes gets a bit sloppy and doesn't use the "show preview" button can easily have double the number of edits (or more) than a careful contributor.
169:
true that more edits usually mean more experience. But while it can be an OK place to get a first impression, it is a poor place to stop. In particular
113:
82:
180:
characters who suddenly go up one experience level upon reaching 1000 (or 2000) edits and become imbued with twice the power at that point.
131:
86:
254:. An administrator will run into trolls, vandals and rude people, and has to be able to tackle this, without decending to such a level.
239:
mean that an admin who shies away from conflict is unfit for the job, it just means that they aren't very active on the front lines.)
297:
230:
But having demonstrated good conduct in times of conflict is definitely a plus. An admin who is fairly active
117:
285:
The candidate must have demonstrated that it's a good thing to make them an administrator.
177:
8:
149:
OK, my criterion says little, so here is some clarification (or perhaps it is more fog).
255:
273:
135:
31:
Sjakkalle's admin criterion of whether he will support or oppose a candidate is:
17:
291:
37:
134:' adminship because of it. The reason I discarded this criterion is
126:
The user must have at least 100 edits in the
Knowledge namespace
272:
and those who don't. One "harmless" incident (e.g. nominating
100:
No users which I dislike can have supported the candidate.
36:
Promoting the candidate to administrator status must be a
130:
Actually I did follow this criterion once, and I opposed
95:
A user which I dislike must have opposed the candidate.
289:
105:None of the other votes must be troubling to me.
262:
26:
64:The candidate must not be an inclusionist.
69:The candidate must not be a deletionist.
14:
290:
200:
165:is a very objective criterion, and it
144:
118:WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
54:The candidate must be an inclusionist.
152:
59:The candidate must be a deletionist.
45:Some of the criteria Sjakkalle does
23:
280:
157:
24:
309:
83:this vote in the "correct column"
87:this vote in the "wrong" column
13:
1:
205:
263:Vandalism and other nonsense
7:
298:User criteria for adminship
217:
27:Criterion I base my vote on
10:
314:
138:. He has done a good job.
222:How a candidate handles
188:
178:Dungeons and Dragons
176:Wikipedians are not
201:Subjective criteria
145:Some clarifications
256:Knowledge:Civility
153:Objective criteria
305:
313:
312:
308:
307:
306:
304:
303:
302:
288:
287:
283:
281:The bottom line
274:April Fools Day
265:
220:
208:
203:
191:
160:
158:Number of edits
155:
147:
136:User:Khaosworks
132:User:Khaosworks
49:apply include:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
311:
301:
300:
282:
279:
264:
261:
219:
216:
207:
204:
202:
199:
190:
187:
182:
181:
174:
159:
156:
154:
151:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
123:
122:
121:
102:
97:
92:
91:
90:
78:Wiki-political
66:
61:
56:
43:
42:
28:
25:
18:User:Sjakkalle
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
310:
299:
296:
295:
293:
286:
278:
275:
271:
260:
257:
253:
247:
244:
240:
238:
233:
228:
225:
215:
212:
198:
196:
186:
179:
175:
172:
171:
170:
168:
164:
150:
137:
133:
129:
128:
127:
124:
119:
114:
111:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
88:
84:
79:
75:
72:
71:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:
57:
55:
52:
51:
50:
48:
40:
39:
34:
33:
32:
19:
284:
269:
266:
251:
248:
245:
241:
236:
231:
229:
223:
221:
210:
209:
194:
192:
183:
166:
162:
161:
148:
125:
109:
104:
99:
94:
77:
73:
68:
63:
58:
53:
46:
44:
35:
30:
120:philosophy.
211:Experience
206:Experience
195:time spent
163:Edit count
38:Good Thing
224:conflicts
292:Category
218:Conflict
193:Again,
270:caught
110:Reason
74:Reason
16:<
252:them
232:will
189:Time
85:and
237:not
47:not
294::
167:is
89:.
41:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.