User:PeterSymonds/RfA criteria
I was recently asked what my criteria for RfA is, and as I've become more involved with the process, I want to give some idea about why I would support, oppose or go neutral. Naturally, some admin candidates express no interest in certain areas -- some content builders will only need the tools for the odd G6 deletion, and the odd block after final warning. These non-typical admins should not be excluded; whether or not people believe it, it is not a big deal when you know how to use them. However, as this is now one of the most popular websites in the world, these tools can have a dramatic effect on what millions of users see every day. In that regard, it is a big deal. Here is a breakdown of my thoughts on what I'd like to see in a potential admin.
Support/Oppose
[edit]Basics
[edit]- The candidate should have been actively contributing for at least three months. 6 months is better, but if the candidate has shown they could be a good admin in three months, that's fine too. Any shorter, and I will likely oppose; there is a lot to learn here, and it can't all be done in less than three months.
- At least 2000 edits, well distributed across the namespaces. 3000 if the candidate's primary focus is in a specialist area, such as vandal fighting. A good number of talk page edits is a necessity; see communication.
- A clean block log, or no blocks within the last six months. Depending on the reason, the block could indicate that the candidate is not ready for the tools. However, if the candidate has clearly shown adequate evidence of change in less than six months, following the block, I will likely support. Bear in mind, though, that trust takes a long time to rebuild itself.
- Two DYKS, or a GA, or an FA. Even if article writing is not the candidate's primary area, a concerted effort should be made; this is, after all, an encyclopedia. It also teaches all the other policies, like WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. etc.
- Some AfD work. And by AfD work, I mean a clear reason based on policy, and not hundreds of "per nom"s. No indication that the candidate can judge based on our policies indicates a lack of understanding thereof.
Communication
[edit]Evidence of clear, civil communication with other editors (yes, even vandals). It's important to keep a cool head. If your head has been bitten off by a user because you tagged their article for speedy deletion, and you respond with the same vigour, you will only exacerbate the situation. As an admin working in CSD, new-user fury will come at a faster pace when actually deleting articles. Therefore, if you communicate kindly and understandingly with new users, even when they are not, you will likely have my support. If the candidate fails to show evidence of consistent communication (low talk page edits, for example; or a history of negative communication), I will not support.
Communication through userboxes and userpages is also something I take into account. Userboxes with statements of candidate beliefs and values do not bother me. However, when they directly or indirectly attack the counter-view or opinion, I will oppose. Say if a user needed help and wanted to come to the candidate. Then they saw a userbox that attacked their opinions. Would they want to come to you? No.
Policy knowledge
[edit]- Deletion Evidence that you have an understanding of all policies, especially the admin-related ones. As an admin, the main ones are the deletion policy; the criteria for speedy deletion; the protection policy; and the blocking policy. If you wish to work in speedy deletion, I will support if you can tag correctly. WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A3, WP:CSD#G4, WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#A7 are the policies that are mainly misunderstood by those working at CSD. If you have a recent history of misplaced tagging, I will not support. If you have a history of tagging articles that appeared that very minute, I will not support, because articles are often built in stages. Only when it's clear vandalism, an attack page, recreated material or a copyright violation, should it be tagged quickly. The author should be given time to show notability, and a quick deletion can offend newcomers.
- Blocking can be the most contentious power that an administrator can use. I will support if I see a consistent history of warning users, done with template levels 1-4, before reporting to WP:AIV. I will oppose if I see recent unjustified reports -- these include edits that are not vandalism, or when no final warning (or no warnings at all) has been issued. UAA is simple: I will support if the reports are accurate, but oppose if there is blatantly no need for admin action. If the user chooses to have "54321" after their name, it is not a nonsense name. Or when a user chooses to name themselves after a favourite TV character, it is not a blatant advertisement of the TV programme in question. If there is no history of this, I will support.
- Protecting. Vandalism semi-protection is only used to prevent high levels of vandalism, to the point it becomes uncontrollable for whatever reason. If there is a history of poor judgement when reporting pages, for example, if a TV programme is reported pre-emptively because it starts in a few hours, I will oppose. If there is a recent history of poor judgement when it comes to the number of vandalism edits, for example if the page has only been attacked eight times in the last two weeks, I will oppose. Protection is based on personal judgement, so that should also be taken into account. Only when there's a history of blatant poor judgement will I oppose a candidate.
- Article-writing is also important, as that pretty much covers all the other policies. It also helps improve communication and collaboration, so no history of article building will lead me to oppose. At minimum, I believe that at least 2 DYKs, one GA or one FA is sufficient. We are here to build an encyclopedia after all. But article writing may not be a specialist area, and that has to be taken into account. I will support if a concerted effort has been made, and if the candidate's main area is vandal fighting, then that's fine too.
Experience
[edit]It is important. If the candidate wishes to take on more admin work, experience is shown through successful application of the policies above. I will oppose if I don't think the candidate has enough experience. "Learning as you go" is fine, but silly mistakes can be avoided when more experience is developed. As a non-admin, there is an administrator to decline a block, or a speedy, if the report is made in error. As an admin, you're effectively on your own.
Trust
[edit]Trust is a necessity. If I don't trust the candidate for a reason valid at RfA, I will oppose, and provide a full reason for it. This will almost certainly never be personal, but maturity is an important part of being an admin. If the candidate is not mature as a user of an editor, I will oppose. Age doesn't matter. An editor can be 11 and be more mature than an editor of 33. As long as the job is done, and done well, I will support an admin candidate even if they openly declare their age. Be aware, though, that some older users, especially new users, will find it uneasy communicating with someone so young, but that's not a reason to oppose.
Power hunger
[edit]Gah, I know we all hate that phrase. I will oppose RfAs in which the only purpose is to step up the ladder. These RfAs happen rarely, so it's not really a fundamental concern. However, I will oppose candidates who show a clear misunderstanding about what adminship is all about. This includes a higher power above others; those who feel admin powers would give them a stronger voice during content disputes; or those who see adminship as a status symbol. It's a user group, not a cabal. Those who think that they will be invited into some secret order after their bid for adminship are in for a disappointing surprise.
Self-nominations don't bother me one bit. So what? I don't think a candidate deserves to be opposed purely because there is no nominator to sing their praises.
"Specialist" admins
[edit]Candidates who wish to work in a certain area will likely receive my support. Developers need access to the protected MediaWiki namespace, and other fully-protected pages. Those who work at DYK will want access to the protected T:DYK. I will support if the candidate has had a good, solid history with that area.
Neutral/Abstain
[edit]I will abstain by !voting neutral if the candidate has shown good application of the criteria above, but fails certain aspects. I will explain why at the time (good, solid interaction, but not enough experience, for example), but my feelings about it won't be strong enough to oppose. Essentially, a neutral is a vote of confidence; if the RfA passes, it will not worry me too much, but I would advise caution for that area. However, the concerns would be valid enough not to throw my full support behind the candidate.
If I have not had personal interactions with the user, or seen them around, I will check a full selection of recent contributions (500-1000). If I have not done that, I will not contribute. It is not because I don't care about the outcome, it's because I haven't had time to fully check.
Summary
[edit]The summary is summed up by User:Pedro. Is the candidate equipped with admin tools a net positive for the project? If yes, then it's a support. If no, then it's an oppose. If they will be soon, with a bit more work in certain areas to address valid concerns, then it's a neutral. Here are the details spelled out, in case anyone is interested in what I look for in a candidate.