User talk:Kraftlos/admin criteria

Fallacy[edit]

Hi Kraftlos, as you have invited people to comment I'd like to offer my 10 cents: Two of your criteria exclude each other:

Has specific work that they are involved with that would be aided by the tools
Shouldn't appear to be padding their resume for a future RfA

Why would any editor do jobs that could be better done with the admin bits, if not for demonstrating need of the tools, and therefore improving their chances at RfA? So the very criterion that you set in bold face I would delete altogether.

Other than that, I do not disagree with your criteria. Hard to meet but not prohibitively exclusive. --Pgallert (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of work that can be done by regular editors that eventually needs help from an Admin. Such as AIV or speedy deletion. I'm afraid I see an alarming trend that people will purposely work in "admin areas" because they want to be an admin. These are areas that are said to be good experience for admin hopefuls. When I see someone is focusing in these areas and not really doing the mundane content work such as merges, copyediting, referencing and cleanups, I really don't think they have the project's interest in mind. I think they're looking for that trophy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WSC's view[edit]

Hi Kraftlos, just thought I'd take the opportunity to give my 2p on your criteria. Firstly don't be too proud that Pastor Theo would have failed them, most admins would have failed your criteria - myself included (though I would have passed the two year bit a couple of months later). The difficult thing at RFA is how one rules out the Pastor Theos et al without ruling out to many potentially good admins. I consider that your criteria would rule out an awful lot of good candidates. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those good candidates can continue doing good work. They don't need the tools and they can always come back later and try again. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they are good candidate, then they do need the tools. Some will be so put off from the experience, they won't come back. When so many good candidates fail your criteria - and you even admit they are good candidates - it is surely time to rethink the criteria. The purpose of RFA is to select administrators, and opposing most people with the flimsiest of reasons isn't going to help anything. Aiken ♫ 17:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kraftlos, I'm relieved that you acknowledge that no candidate will meet these criteria 100%. For example I don't think you opposed Joe Decker, and he sailed through recently despite "only" having 6,000 edits. I'd like to suggest to you that there is a difference between the typo fixes, categorisations other minor edits that rather inflate my edit count and actually referencing articles the way Joe Decker does. Perhaps rephrasing your criteria to reflect how you apply them would partially defuse people. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, occasionally I see candidates that will have an unusually low edit count, but some edits will contain half an article worth of content. If I see someone who is prolific like that, I know they have enough content experience to be a compassionate admin. I've only seen a few of those out there. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aiken's view[edit]

Just my 2 cents: I think your criteria are absurd and at odds with community norms of what is expected for admin experience. You expect much more than what is necessary, and you seem to consider the position of admin as some sort of glorified status. It is not. I note that you wish to become an admin. If you continue using this criteria, you will never become one. Why? Because you don't understand the role you'd be applying for. I really hope you seriously consider revising these criteria, to something that is a little more along the lines of what is expected. Currently, most admins would have not met your criteria, and most candidates that pass do not either. It's fine to be strict, but excessively strict isn't. Aiken ♫ 13:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a dick, but you've only appear to have been here about ten months, I've been here almost four years. I think it's ridiculous that you would assert that I don't understand what the role of admins is. This is basic stuff. From the technical side I run MediaWiki software on my own server for personal use, so in a sense I am an admin and know very well what is and is not possible, at least on a basic level. On Wikipedia, as I've said, I've been around the block a few times I know what work admins do.

The tools do not confer glory or status. That is exactly the attitude these criteria are designed to weed out. Someone looking for these things would not likely meet these criteria because they wont stick it out. Most people looking for status are only willing to put in a few months.

Do I understand the role? Yes I do. It's a mop... you become janitor. You clean up messes of all kinds, and in the wrong hands could royally screw up things around here. What do you think I'm missing?

Are my criteria more than necessary? Perhaps. I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't wish to become an admin. I would only request the tools if I felt I had time and desire to contribute to the admin backlog. As it is, I have way more work to do than I have time for, so really, at this point in time I don't want the tools. I guess I should clarify since when I wrote that last year it was something I was actually interested in pursuing.

I don't base my criteria off of community norms. This isn't a descriptive exercise where you take what is general practice and codify it into your personal criteria; this is a prescriptive exercise where you describe an ideal list of qualifications, understanding that no candidate will meet them 100%. Yes these are strict. But there is nothing excessive about them. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 months is ample time, and I run two websites with Mediawiki software. So what. If you really understood the role of admins, you'd understand that it does not take two years to know how things work. Any competent individual can learn their way around here in a matter of weeks. I'm not saying people should be made admins after a few weeks - I agree they need some time to earn some respect and gain experience. But two years?? Surely, if the tools were "a mop" and "no big deal" they would not need a length of time as long as that. If anything, your criteria should be more lenient - it contradicts at the moment. On the one hand, you accept it's not a glorified, God-like status, and yet on the other, you demand an excessive resume of experience that's completely over the top for what the job entails. I think that by having excessive experience requirements, you're putting competent people out unnecessarily. I won't pursue this any further, because we'll never agree and luckily most people are more realistic, but I hope you will consider changing, at least the two year standard to one year, which is much more what is expected. I actually agree with most of your other criteria, though I wouldn't use them myself, I can see where you're coming from. But I don't get the point of two years, when it puts so many good candidates out. Aiken ♫ 15:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way, there is no way in hell you could learn how things work here in a few weeks as you say. I'm not one of those "too many admins already" guys, but I don't think we have any shortage. I know originally Jimbo had everyone as admins, and while that's a nice thought, English Wikipedia quickly grew out of that. The nature of the duties does lend itself to somewhat of a leadership role and new users often mistake them for moderators, but I'm not sure what else you'd call someone who gets the final word on deletion discussions. I know that almost every 10-month veteran editor thinks they can do the job. I don't think there are too many people that don't think they can do the job. The question isn't competitence, the question is character and experience. I'm not intersted in the fact that they simply won't break things or will try their hardest to learn. Wikipedia policy is very wide and complex, it does require at least that long to have a general grasp of it. You still haven't shown me how that is in any way excessive, you've just thrown that claim out there without substantiating it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely wrong regarding your first sentence - I managed to - I'll use the cliche, it's not rocket science. It simply does not take two years - as is demonstrated by hundreds of competent admins who passed with much less than two years' experience. That is the evidence that demanding two years is excessive. We can see hundreds of competent people doing a great job, and while there will always be a bad egg or three, they could just have easily have been around longer. The question is competence. This isn't a job where people are paid - it's volunteering to do a mostly mundane task of maintaining Wikipedia. The more admins, who do the job well, the merrier. Aiken ♫ 22:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's roughly two years.... not two year minimum. And I make exceptions. I generally don't find admin candidates with less than 2 years to have the other qualifications I'm looking for, so two years is just a good rule of thumb. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Views[edit]

I'm just going to drop in regarding your criteria, having defended your right to vote on an ongoing RFA. I do agree with others as to your criteria being a little strict in some areas - I know that I'd have failed my RFA comfortably through them, but having become an administrator during a very different time period (2005, when RFA was a very different place, with around 25 votes per RFA on average), that's not really surprising. Regarding your criteria, my views would be as follows:

Involvement in at least one Wikiproject - I feel that this is harsh; Although I see why it's here, some editors prefer to edit away from projects, or there isn't one covering their area of interest (as in my case, where I edited on Central European music before becoming an administrator, an area with limited contributors)
Roughly 10,000+ non-automated edits - Reasonable nowadays, although surely should not be binding if an excellent candidate has 8,000-9,000
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. - Definitely important
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. - Agree
Adequately answers policy questions, policy work preferred - Agree
Doesn't say something like "I will not participate in AfD", the recall process is difficult, we can't depend on self-restraint - Strongly agree, if somebody needs to say this, then they've got 'history', so to speak
Preferably not a self-nomination, though for a long-time editor with a good history this is fine. - Makes sense, but to meet the other criteria, you'd probably have a nominee
Has specific work that they are involved with that would be aided by the tools - Agree
Humility. They should be confident that they can do the job, but they should have a humble approach to their request. - Agree
Does not have incivility issues - Agree
No blocks in the last two years, without a good explanation - Agree, so long as good explanation is an accident or technical issue
Has been editing for over 2 years - I'm not sure that this length of time is necessary, some editors mature with the site within a year, others can take three or four years

Many of these points are core to my own principles for adminship, although I don't see the importance of WikiProjects in judging administrative potential. The length of time for editing also seems excessive. Esteffect (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, FWIW. Connormah^talk 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, the Wikiproject criteria is really aimed at insuring that the candidate isn't a loner but has participated in the community in some way. They know people here, and they are known. Gnoming is all well and good, but you really need to know how to work with others. So alternative forms of community participation are fine, like heavy involvement with a group of specific articles or work on a policy, or simply helping out in other places. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung's view[edit]

Why don't you run for office and see if you pass your own criteria? Of course, even if you do, the tally of !votes might not go the way you expect ;) --Kudpung (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For office? Did you mean put forward a nomination? You no doubt saw that I already stated that I don't pass my own criteria; hence why I'm not nominating myself or seeking nomination. I meant what I said when I said I wanted to be judged by my own criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality[edit]

Prompted by your votes, I looked at your criteria, and think they are a good idea, in general. Many match my unwritten ones, and I particularly like "Humility. They should be confident that they can do the job, but they should have a humble approach to their request". That goes for a quality, while I don't like so much "editing for over two years", which is just a quantity. I am a choral singer, and when we discussed counting the number of rehearsals attended, a wise woman said: some come to the first and know the piece by heart already, others will not be able to learn it in all rehearsals offered". I recommend that you don't use it as the only disqualifying argument. If a user learns quickly, and edits a lot, why should he wait, while another one, editing only rarely, would some day qualify without much other merit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]