User:Netoholic/Admins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm starting to put together this page to help people understand my stance on Requests for Adminship, and administrators in general.

If you're reading this, please understand this is not personal. I would vote the same way for someone I really know and like. I'd be happy to discuss about by views on this Talk page.

-- Netoholic @

[edit] Admin nominations

Unlike probably most people, when I evaluate an admin candidate, I tend to do a very "deep dive" into their contributions. Only a very few tasks are admin-only, so I look for evidence that the candidate is moving towards that direction naturally.

1. I look for at least about 2000 edits, but I think there needs to be a balance between Article (1500+), Talk/User (250+), and Wikipedia (250+). I think that being ready for adminship requires that one have a breadth of experience.
2. Along with a base number of edits, I also look for a breadth of article tasks. If you spend 80% of your edits on three articles, I'll bet you just haven't seen enough of the Wiki. An admin candidate should show willingness to work outside their area doing the mundane, and many such tasks don't require major knowledge in that area. Try something that doesn't require firm knowledge of the subject, like copy-editing random articles, Wikipedia:Cleanup, or a similar collaboration. I worry that an admin who is too tied to a few articles in their area of special interest may use admin status to enforce "their vision" of it.
3. I don't tend to count runs of repeatable minor edits in the minimum edit threshold. When one spends an hour moving 100 articles into a category or similar minor change, I tend to look at that as one action. This kind of boring "maintenance" is a good thing to see, but its really pretty minor and can't compare to one good article expansion.
4. Articles are Wikipedia's life-blood. I like to see a candidate that values other people's contributions, even the bad ones. I respect someone greatly who takes a short newbie article and improves it at least to a good stub level, or maybe even a decent redirect. Slapping {{delete}} or {{vfd}} on an article that was made only a short time ago is an insult to the author. Encouraging improvement is a more respectable stance.
5. Opinions are important. If you haven't gotten involved in an article dispute, you probably haven't gotten the experience to properly handle them after becoming an admin. Getting involved doesn't mean you have to be on either side – try mediating between two sides toward an agreement.
6. Don't be someone who breaks standard policies and guidelines - especially when it comes to edit or "revert" wars. Take the high road and try to come to a balanced outcome, or request assistance from others.