User:Kraftlos/admin criteria

Kraftlos' criteria for Adminship

• Involvement in at least one Wikiproject, or has other significant community involvement
• Roughly 10,000 non-automated edits
• Should have vandal-fighting experience, but this should not be the bulk of their edits. If manual edits are still more than 10k, then this doesn't apply
• Super-majority of edits should be comprised of main space and article talk edits, or can be demonstrated to be strongly committed to content building
• Adequately answers policy questions, policy work preferred
• Does not promise not to work in specific admin areas, the recall process is difficult, we can't depend on self-restraint
• Preferably not a self-nomination, though for a longtime editor with a good history this is fine.
• Has specific work that they are involved with that would be aided by the tools
• Humility. They should be confident that they can do the job, but they should have a humble approach to their request
• Does not have incivility issues
• No blocks in the last two years, without a good explanation
• In most cases, a candidate should have been editing for over two years

I disagree with what Jimbo says, "becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*; it might not have been so important when this site was young and small, but we've grown and there's a lot to gain from a good admin (or lose from a bad admin). I want to trust that the person holding the tools has the project's interest in mind, and isn't just looking for bragging rights. The candidate should also have a solid history. Though it's sometimes hard to determine one's motivation, a user shouldn't appear to be padding their resume for a future RfA. They should do the right kind of work because it needs to be done, and because they care about Wikipedia, not because it's good experience for becoming an admin. That's what these criteria are designed to determine.

I don't think the tools should be handed out to people just because they've been here six months and haven't caused many problems. "Not breaking stuff" isn't really something of which to be proud. And, of course, these criteria eliminate about two thirds of all candidates. That is by design. I've had run-ins in the past with admins who don't know policy, and I don't want to put any more of those into our system.

Critique of my criteria

I'm open to comment for improvement of this page and my criteria, as long as the comments are constructive and civil. Please do so at this page's talkpage. I want these to be as objective as possible, and if you find that there's something lacking, I'd like to know.

Has specific work they want to do

The main criterion I use is that there is a good reason for the candidate to have the tools and they have some specific ideas of what they would do. I disagree with WP:NONEED, chiefly because what a candidate wants to do and how you can use the tools is central to whether or not I have confidence in that candidate. Question 1 on any RfA asks why a candidate wants the tools; if this was irrelevant then we wouldn't ask the question, much less put it as the first question. If you don't know what you'd do with them, then I don't see why we're even bothering with an RfA. They're not ready.

The potential for a once-a-month edit or the tools not being used is simply not enough reason to give someone the tools. Tools should be given to the people best able and most likely to use them. Not just as a trophy or a badge of trust for people who've been around here a while.

If this is the reason for declining, it is shorthand for "I don't think this candidate has put much thought into this RfA" or "I don't think this candidate is thorough enough" or "Their lack of a specific focus leads me to believe that perhaps they aren't experienced enough".

Edit count and length of service

Length of service is defined as the time since the month they started contributing. Many RfA candidates will have started their account, say, four years ago, but only have about a year's worth of contributions. Long lapses in activity are also taken into account, although often there's a good reason for such lapses.

I don't think there's any substitute for experience. If someone has been here two years and has 10k+ edits, you can be pretty sure he has been around the block a few times. Of course quantity is always balanced with quality. Some people make GA and FA quality material in very few edits, and I obviously won't discourage someone who is focused on making quality content edits. But I don't believe you can concentrate experience. 12k edits in 9 months is not the same as 12k edits in 3 years. The latter is most likely more experienced.

If this is my reason for opposition, it is shorthand for saying "I have reviewed the candidate's record, and don't think that he has enough experience." It doesn't mean "the candidate's score is too low, better luck next time" and that I didn't even bother to check anything else. That would just be silly.

Content work and Audited content

FA and GA work demonstrates dedication to the project, and that a user is truly here to make an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, people work on hundreds of articles while they're here. I don't feel it's entirely fair to discriminate against people who help the encyclopedia in other ways. We all bring a different skill set to the table. While these accomplishments are a plus to someone's RfA, I don't feel that this should be required.

People can demonstrate their dedication to building the encyclopedia in other ways too. All I care about is that the candidate is focused on content creation; it doesn't necessarily have to be lots of heavy edits, but it should include:

1. Adding sourced material to articles
2. Fact checking, re-sourcing, heavy copy edits
3. Discussing on the talk page.
4. Assessment work at Wikiprojects, GA and FA levels
5. Work with AfC

As stated by User:Pointillist "I'm not expecting candidates to have moved mountains—I just want to see some substantial edits, some real references and some collaborative discussions on article talk pages that result in article improvement.....My logic is like this:

1. The purpose of this project is to build encyclopedic content.
2. Admins have wide powers that affect content and the editors who contribute it.
3. Therefore being an admin requires a reasonable minimum level of content competence.
4. Therefore admin candidates/nominators should demonstrate this competence."

I also agree with the sentiments of this user "If you're being a useless prat, stop. If you haven't touched an article in the past hundred edits, what in the world are you doing here?".

Involvement with a WikiProject

The Wikiproject criteria is really aimed at ensuring that the candidate isn't a loner, and has participated in the community in some way. The candidate knows people here, and is known. Gnoming is all well and good, but a candidate should really know how to work with others.

So alternative forms of community participation could be:

• Heavy involvement with a group of specific articles
• Work on a policy or series of RfC's
• Simply helping out in other places such as AfC or Helpdesk
• Interaction at the signpost or IRC (not everyone's cup of tea)

Automated Edits

Automated edits are still edits. However, when they're made en masse like with AWB or very quickly like with Huggle, they really don't seem to be as important as a well-thought-out manual edit. I don't really feel Friendly and Twinkle are fully automated, they're more semi-automated; one could just as easily do this work with a list of templates or with custom edit buttons. These tools help editors do things in a consistent manner and improve communication with other editors, especially new ones. Template messages are designed to cover all the bases and give people most the information they need. If these tools didn't exist, content policies might be ignored more frequently, because it would take a lot more effort to inform people of their mistakes or with article problems. There is such a thing as over-doing it, and you probably shouldn't template people's talkpages when they're a regular contributor. But I don't see any harm in a solid percentage of edits being made using such tools.

However, I think manual edits tend to be more thoughtful, and almost always this is where the content work is done. An admin needs to have at least 10k manual edits, no matter what his or her total count reads.

Evaluation of criteria

• I was correct about Pastor Theo here, if everyone was using my criteria, he never would've passed RfA
• Against several of these criteria, I supported this RfA. I guess I don't view these rules as absolute, he had 30k edits in about a year of active editing (two years since account creation). No major problems with policy questions. Seemed to be really good with vandalism work, couldn't say no.
• I mentioned this candidate only had 14 months of activity. Another user asked me if I expected them to live on Wikipedia. Upon further reflection, I still think candidates should be active for at least the last two years. Being active really only means 100-200 edits a month, an average of 3-6 edits a day, not unreasonable.
• 7 (talk · contribs) only had about 15 months of activity on his account, but because of his well-reasoned answers and strong edit history, I made an exception.
• I made the "mistake" of voicing my opinion in a near-unanimous RfA as well as a bit of cross-talk here. Let's just say I received a lot of feedback. I have since clarified some of my criteria, however I am still very firm about my two-year requirement.

My own aspirations for the mop

By my own criteria, I don't feel that I am ready to be an admin, nor do I wish to take on the extra responsibility and work at this time. However, if in the future I chose to put in my request, I would want to be judged by the same measure that I use to judge others, so I want these to be fair criteria. See how I've voted in past RfA's

At the moment, I have no specific reason to have the tools. Until I have a reason and I meet my own criteria, I won't put forward a self-nomination.

Other comments about the RfA process

• Someone recently said that according to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process that it is not a vote. While this might be true on RfC and AfD, in practice RfA is a vote. You have candidates, you have numbered supports/opposes/neutrals, and a running tally. While this is consensus driven and its ultimately up to the Bureaucrats to make the final call, this really can't be described as anything other than a vote. It's not what Jimbo had in mind from the begining, but Wikipedia is an evolving concept. Given the size of the project, voting is necessary - experiment in democracy or not.

See Also

Other people's criteria

• User:AnmaFinotera#RfAs - This was probably the closest to mine. But for some reason we can't find the original.
• User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards
• User:Fastily/RfA_Rationale
• User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards
• User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA