User:Audacity/Standards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My standards for supporting a Request for adminship
The most important thing to understand about my standards is that I approach voting in RFAs positively, not negatively. I don't start out with an ideal candidate — x amounts of edits, one featured article, etc. — and then take away support if the nom deviates from this model. Instead, I look holistically at the nom, to answer the fundamental RFA question: will Wikipedia be better or worse off if the nom is given adminship?
Let's look at my voting as having a threshold of 0. If the value of giving adminship to the nominee is greater than 0, I will vote support; if lower, I will vote oppose. I will vote neutral if I am not sure about the value. I suppose all nominees start off slightly negative, because the sysop tools carry extra risk of abuse. But all you need to boost you over the threshold is some indication that you will do good things with the tools. Of course, incivility or closed-mindedness that indicates you are likely to be a an abusive admin will push you back down.
My requirements:
- Commitment
- Any reasonable amount of edits in mainspace (let's say 150+)
- Not because your mainspace edits have anything to do with adminship; just to show some commitment to the project. This is more a safety factor than anything else.
- Two weeks editing Wikipedia
- Same reasoning as above
- Policy knowledge
- Comments indicating such knowledge
- This is very important. You can demonstrate this by editing pages in the Wikipedia space, or by dealing with vandalism or disputes and thereby showing your policy knowledge (can be on talk pages).
- Understanding of administrator duties
- Good answer to question 1
- Desire to be an administrator
- Good answer to question 1
- Edit summary use
- High (let's say >95% for major edits)
- If you promise to improve this, I'll let it go.
- Civility
- No exceptions
- If you have been incivil, you must demonstrate that you have overcome this problem, and that it is not likely to happen again
- Strength of belief
- I happen to favor controversial actions done in good faith, which demonstrate that you will stand up to abuse. Of course, stay within the bounds of civility, WP:POINT, etc.
I disagree that adminship is no big deal. See User:NoSeptember/Adminship is a big deal for why.
I think adminship will only become no big deal if desysopping is also no big deal. I think desysopping should be much easier and more public.
