Jump to content

User:LindsayH/RfA Criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background

[edit]

I have said that i plan on taking part in more RfAs, in part because if generally positive editors don't, then by default those who have stricter or more bizarre criteria are given more voice, which i think is something that helps poison the RfA well. If i am to take part, i thought it behoves me to actually lay out ~ primarily for myself, but also for anyone who might care to read them ~ the reasons behind my positions. I know what i think, vaguely, but it makes sense to clarify in mine own mind my thoughts.

So, then, why would i support someone in an RfA? What, in other words, do i consider important qualities or experiences for an administrator?

Default to support

[edit]

Generally speaking, i think that my default position would be to support an RfA, to think that a user is to be trusted with the tools that the position brings. Partly this is related to what i trust i always do, which, in this context, i take to mean that i assume that someone is trustworthy unless or until proven otherwise. This is not to say that i don't look for any reasons not to trust, just that i will start from the assumption that i do trust editors here in general.

Content Creation

[edit]

A point that frequently arises is the experience of the candidate in article writing, often with emphasis on article creation or “promotion” to good or featured status. While i think it is important that there be some experience, i am not one to have a set minimum number of edits in article space. This is for a couple of reasons: People gain abilities at different speeds, so the level of skill it took me five thousand edits to attain, someone with a better grasp might require only two thousand, or even fewer.

While, as it frequently said, the purpose of the whole project is content creation ~ the making of an encyclopaedia ~ i do not think that it therefore follows as an automatic corollary that the administrators have to have a certain level of content creation. It is no matter to me if the candidate has created a certain number of articles ~ obviously, one or two would be useful, just enough to show an understanding of the mechanics of it ~ nor if there is or is not a set number of articles shepherded through to become Featured. Nor can i say that i am concerned if a large number of edits are automated by some script or other, so long as all of them show evidence of having been examined before committment or, at the very least, the candidate has gone back and found and corrected any errors: I cannot say automation is likely to break the project.

An obvious supplemental point to this is that i do not believe that gnomic work is valueless for a candidate for RfA; it simply doesn’t matter, so long as the contributions are positive, what those contributions are. Correcting typographical errors, formatting articles, rebuilding sentences to make them slightly more readable ~ all of these, while not creating content, are highly useful in the matter of making the encyclopaedia better, more useful to our readers.

Experience

[edit]

As for time spent on the project, i think i would probably look for a minimum of about six to eight months, simply so that the candidate has had the opportunity to see and participate in some of the cycles ~ RfAs, Requests for Comment, Deletions and Deletion Reviews, and so forth. If there has not been, during that six months (or however long it may be) any participation in these areas/cycles, then i would suggest that the candidate is not yet ready. There is no reason to expect someone to have been to all the behind-the-scenes areas ~ heck, i'm not bothered if there are swathes of WP namespace which are an unknown territory (there certainly are for me!) ~ but some familiarity with some of them is useful.

Disputes

[edit]

An area that i think it is a good idea for a candidate to have had some experience is dispute resolution. While i do not hold that it is essential to have worked in one or more of the usual or “official” areas, it certainly might be a point in favour. It is useful to be able to look at how the candidate behaved when involved in a dispute, and for that reason i think the third generic question of the process is essential, and i would have a little less respect for a candidate who didn't answer it or was unable to point to any disagreements at which i could look.

Whether in participation or in resolution, i think it important that the candidate be able to show a record of calmness, of non-reaction to disagreement, of the ability to look at and assess arguments on their merits rather than on their emotional appeal. Ideally, if there has been a dispute, it will have been resolved without outside intervention, by which i mean a solution imposed from “above”, and acceptable to and accepted by all participants. So much the better if the candidate was actually on the “losing” side and is able to show continued productive editing in the area after the resolution.

While it might be ideal to have some experience in dispute resolution to point towards, i do not consider it essential. What is essential, however, is that if there is some evidence, it shows the candidate is level-headed and calm, very clearly not taking sides in the dispute, and able to pin-point the area of disagreement without being distracted by side-issues. The end-point should have been the same conclusion the majority of people would have reached were they in that position.

Being helpful

[edit]

Similarly to my belief about the behind-the-scenes awareness above, i don't think it essential that the candidate have done any administrator-like (“proto-admin”?) work such as closing deletion discussions, reporting vandalism, expressing opinions on ANI, or assisting in any other ways. What is important is that if such activities have taken place, they should show the ability to get it right ~ i.e., not being overturned for stupid mistakes or misunderstanding consensus. For me it is far more important that a new administrator be willing to start slowly, to take the time needed (which varies by person, so i'm not demanding a commitment not to block, for example, for three weeks and two days) to learn the new abilities. I would also approve of a candidate who admits that the buttons are new and unknown and will require learning and practise, and taking one thing at a time. Thus, being willing to “attend” new admin school and committing to do so over a period of time is a plus in my view.

That being said, it is clearly beneficial to the community that a candidate have already read through the Reading List, be aware of what admins do and have the potential to do ~ not, in other words, going in blind or just because it's the next step to world dominion (making no further comment on any current administrator's passage towards that end). It's not, i mean, a nice shiny badge for someone to pick up; there has to be some value to the community to giving the tools to the candidate.

Community

[edit]

I think it utterly vital that any candidate recognise that WP is a community. Certainly it is one with a specific goal but, like any group of individuals i can think of, there are social aspects as well as the teleological ones. In particular, in mine opinion, as a community we ought to realise and recognise that for some people some of these social facets are important, very important, to some of the community's members. Everyone knows that WP is NOTTHERAPY. The truth is, though, that for some people it is close to therapy, certainly some of their most important ~ if not sole ~ social interactions. Like it or not, this truth requires acknowledgement and understanding in the administering of certain policies.

In mine opinion admins must use compassion in dealing with editors who may not fully understand the primary purpose of the WP site. This does not mean that they need to allow it to become nothing more than one of the social media, nor even have that as one of an editor's major uses of the site. What it does mean is that the candidate i support will show evidence of behaving as one does in a community, with civility (yes, incredibly hard to define, yet vital), affirming other editors in their actions, even when those actions are not what the community finds useful. I suppose the bedrock upon which this criterion rests for me is that behind every account or IP is an actual human being ~ we have not yet reached the point of being fully automated ~ who deserves to be treated as such, no matter what the provocation. This doesn't mean that a candidate should never have lost their temper; if, however, it has been lost, later apologies must have been made. The appropriate human actions must be taken.

Other criteria

[edit]

Signature

[edit]

I do have one or two other, less broad criteria which i may consider in deciding whether to support an RfA candidate. One regards the signature: It should follow all guidelines at SIGNATURE, even the suggestions, so there should be at least some Latin character set in it to be readable by people who have no alphabet other than the Latin. It should link to the candidate's talk page, at least, if not the user page also. And, though this is rather more subjective, it should not be garish or overly big or complex, as i feel that such signatures can be either an attempt to gain an advantage in a discussion or a sign that content creation is less important to the signer than the social aspects of the site.

User space

[edit]

Another requirement, from my perspective, regards the candidate's user and talk pages. Blue Raspberry has had (sadly, that page has been deleted) some good points here about the necessity of a welcoming tone to an admin's userspace; while i don't think for me it rises to the level of primary criterion, it is important enough to be mentioned here. I don't care about protection on the user page (in mine opinion no one but a user should be editing that space anyway), an admin ~ and therefore a candidate ~ should not have a protected talk page. I have seen some which are semi-protected, with a link to a separate, unprotected page where IP editors can edit; i find that acceptable, but less than satisfactory.

Trial by RfA

[edit]

A final, perhaps, indicator for me of the ability of a candidate to perform as an administrator is the demeanour during the RfA process. I prefer to wait and watch for a part of the week, because i have on several occasions been given what felt like some insight into the character of the candidate, which has affected my response. As everyone says, RfA has some issues; but the way it works, potentially raising a bit of stress in the victim candidate, is not altogether a bad thing.

Actual opinions

[edit]

A list of my edits to various Requests, most recent probably at the top; perhaps they actually reflect the theory above, perhaps not!

User Diff & date Vote/comment
Sdkb 15 February 2024 Supported +
The Night Watch 10 February 2024 Opposed -
Robertsky 31 December 2023 Supported +
Red-tailed hawk 29 December 2023 Commented
Red-tailed hawk 29 December 2023 Supported +
Tails Wx 24 December 2023 Questioned
Tails Wx 24 December 2023 Supported -
Paine Ellsworth 16 December 2023 Supported -
JPxG 1 November 2023 Supported +
Ganesha811 29 October 2023 Supported +
0xDeadbeef 23 October 2023 Opposed -
Pppery 31 July 2023 Opposed -
Firefangledfeathers 6 July 2023 Supported +
Ingenuity 10 May 2023 Supported +
Spicy 1 April 2023 Supported +
Spicy 1 April 2023 Questioned
Aoidh 6 March 2023 commented
Aoidh 4 March 2023 Supported +
MB 6 January 2023 Supported -
ComplexRational 14 December 2022 Supported +
Extraordinary Writ 9 December 2022 Supported +
Isabelle Belato 8 October 2022 Supported +
Isabelle Belato 8 October 2022 Questioned
Whpq 25 September 2022 Supported +
ScottishFinnishRadish 13 September 2022 Opposed -
Z1720 27 August 2022 Supported +
DatGuy 15 August 2022 Supported +
Tamzin 1 May 2022 Opposed -
Colin M 3 April 2022 Supported +
Colin M 2 April 2022 Questioned
Sdrqaz 21 March 2022 Supported +
Firefly 4 March 2022 Supported +
theleekycauldron 28 January 2022 Commented
theleekycauldron 28 January 2022 Opposed +
Modussiccandi 26 January 2022 Supported +
25 December 2021 Opposed +
25 December 2021 Commented
Eostrix 17 October 2021 Supported -
Blablubbs 9 September 2021 Commented
Blablubbs 7 September 2021 Supported +
BusterD 3 July 2021 Supported +
Vami IV 8 June 2021 Opposed +
Vami IV 8 June 2021 Commented
Trialpears 5 June 2021 Supported +
TJMSmith 20 February 2021 Supported +
Hog Farm 16 January 2021 Supported +
Hammersoft 12 December 2020 Supported +
John M Wolfson 20 October 2020 Supported +
John M Wolfson 20 October 2020 Commented
LuK3 20 September 2020 Supported +
Jackmcbarn 17 September 2020 Supported +
Red Phoenix 24 July 2020 Supported +
Red Phoenix 23 July 2020 Questioned
Cwmhiraeth 9 May 2020 Supported +
CaptainEek 5 May 2020 Opposed -
Lee Vilenski 11 March 2020 Supported +
Guy Macon 4 March 2020 Neutral
Money emoji 15 February 2020 Opposed -
CASSIOPEIA 11 February 2020 Supported -
Ergo Sum 20 January 2020 Supported +
Nick Moyes 17 January 2020 Supported +
Nick Moyes 16 January 2020 Questioned
Dreamy Jazz 29 November 2019 Commented
Dreamy Jazz 28 November 2019 Supported +
EvergreenFir 11 November 2019 Supported +
ToBeFree 10 November 2019 Supported +
GRuban 9 November 2019 Supported -
GRuban 7 November 2019 Neutral
Girth Summit 19 October 2019 Commented
Girth Summit 19 October 2019 Supported +
Greenman 12 October 2019 Supported -
Kees08 7 October 2019 Supported +
GermanJoe 4 October 2019 Supported +
Barkeep49 4 September 2019 Supported +
Hawkeye7 12 August 2019 Supported -
Izno 10 August 2019 Supported +
AmericanAir88 9 August 2019 Supported -
AmericanAir88 9 August 2019 Commented
Floquenbeam 29 July 2019 Opposed -
Kosack 6 July 2019 Opposed -
Valereee 2 July 2019 Supported +
Daffy123 22 June 2019 Opposed +
RexxS 3 April 2019 Opposed -
Enterprisey 25 January 2019 Neutral
L235 29 August 2018 Supported +
Philafrenzy 24 August 2018 Supported -
Sro23 7 July 2018 Supported +
TheSandDoctor 11 June 2018 Supported +
GreenMeansGo 30 April 2018 Opposed +
331dot 27 March 2018 Supported +
Muboshgu 29 December 2017 Supported +
Joe Roe 29 November 2017 Supported +
Ansh666 16 September 2017 Supported +
Cullen328 17 July 2017 Supported +
GeneralizationsAreBad 12 July 2017 Supported +
GoldenRing 7 April 2017 Commented
GoldenRing 31 March 2017 Supported +
CaroleHenson 9 March 2017 Commented
CaroleHenson 9 March 2017 Neutral
Ferret 6 January 2017 Supported +
Ealdgyth 4 January 2017 Supported +
Boson 23 December 2016 Supported +
Ad Orientem 23 December 2016 Supported +
Ivanvector 22 December 2016 Supported +
Vanamonde93 1 Setember 2016 Supported +
BU Rob13 6 July 2016 Supported +
Amakuru 19 April 2016 Supported +
Widr 21 March 2016 Supported +
Hawkeye7 26 January 2016 Supported -
78.26 19 December 2015 Supported +
BethNaught 16 December 2015 Supported +
Biblioworm 4 November 2015 Opposed -
Thine Antique Pen 12 October 2015 Commented
Thine Antique Pen 11 October 2015 Commented
Thine Antique Pen 11 October 2015 Opposed +
Ian.thomson 2 October 2015 Supported +
Montanabw 23 September 2015 Commented
Montanabw 19 September 2015 Opposed +
APerson 18 September 2015 Opposed +
Wbm1058 29 August 2015 Supported +
Wbm1058 24 August 2015 Commented
Cyclonebiskit 6 August 2015 Supported +
Liz 1 August 2015 Opposed -
Cyphoidbomb 21 July 2015 Supported +
GamerPro64 16 July 2015 Opposed +
Cyberpower678 4 July 2015 Opposed +
Rich Farmbrough 29 June 2015 Supported -
Rich Farmbrough 29 June 2015 Commented
Ser Amantio di Nicolao 22 June 2015 Supported +
NeilN 3 June 2015 Supported +
Opabinia regalis 27 April 2015 Supported +
SarekOfVulcan 18 February 2015 Commented
SarekOfVulcan 13 February 2015 Supported +
MelanieN 18 January 2015 Supported +
Rcsprinter123 30 December 2014 Neutral
Northamerica1000 21 November 2014 Commented
Thomas.W 20 November 2014 Supported -
Northamerica1000 19 November 2014 Opposed -
I JethroBT 11 November 2014 Commented
I JethroBT 11 November 2014 Supported +
Jackmcbarn 3 November 2014 Supported +
GamerPro64 7 October 2014 Supported -
Mkativerata 7 August 2014 Supported -
Solarra 31 July 2014 Opposed +
Solarra 30 July 2014 Questioned
AlanM1 29 July 2014 Neutral
Hahc21 12 Mar 2014 Opposed -
TLSuda 28 Feb 2014 Supported +
SarekOfVulcan 22 Jan 2014 Supported -
Trappist the monk 12 Sept 2013 Commented
Trappist the monk 11 Sept 2013 Supported +
Trappist the monk 10 Sept 2013 Comment/Neutral
Camerontregan 7 Sept 2013 Opposed +
Grandiose 18 August 2013 Supported +
Incnis Mrsi 7 August 2013 Commented
Incnis Mrsi 7 August 2013 Neutral
Huon 19 July 2013 Supported +
Huon 13 July 2013 Questioned
Anna Frodesiak 22 June 2013 Commented
Anna Frodesiak 17 June 2013 Supported +
AppleJack-7 3 June 2013 Opposed +
Kumioko 17 May 2013 Commented
Kumioko 16 May 2013 Neutral
Kumioko 16 May 2013 Commented
Mkdw 15 May 2013 Supported +
Kumioko 15 May 2013 Questioned
Piotrus 1 May 2013 Neutral
Pjoef 30 April 2013 Neutral
Piotrus 27 April 2013 Opposed
Nthep 29 March 2013 Supported +
Nthep 27 March 2013 Commented
Nthep 27 March 2013 Commented
Binksternet 19 March 2013 Neutral
Ocaasi 4 January 2013 Commented
Ocaasi 4 January 2013 Supported +
Darkwind 2 January 2013 Neutral
KTC 26 December 2012 Supported +
Dayewalker 4 November 2011 Commented
Secret 2 November 2011 Commented
Secret 1 November 2011 Opposed +
Acdixon 2 February 2011 Commented
Acdixon 31 January 2011 Supported +
Gimme danger 12 January 2011 Supported +
VernoWhitney 5 November 2010 Supported +
Elen of the Roads 21 October 2010 Supported +
The Thing That Should Not Be 21 October 2010 Opposed +

(Bolded entries were successful, whether i supported or not)
(+/- indicate whether i was in line with the community as determined by the closing 'crat ~ currently 77.17% ~ hmm, going down, am i developing independence or losing touch with the community??)