User:Walton One/Adminship factions

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: This essay is an observation on the different "factions" that can arise in requests for adminship discussions.

In Requests for adminship discussions, users typically examine a number of different criteria in casting their !vote.^[1] Over time, it has become increasingly apparent that most !voters divide into certain "factions", with some prioritising particular factors. Fundamentally, for everyone, the question is whether the candidate can be trusted with the admin tools; however, different users employ a range of different standards in evaluating this.

This is not intended to be an exclusive or definite list; all users are individual, and most take a range of factors into account when making decisions on a request for adminship. As such, most users do not fit into clearly defined "boxes". However, some individual patterns can be identified, as outlined below.

The factions

Articles first

This faction believes that because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the most important qualification for adminship is extensive editing of articles. Rather than quantity of edits, they will look at quality of edits; they will often ignore automated vandalism reverts, and tend to regard extensive projectspace discussion as a sign of being "bureaucratic". Generally, they argue that editors who concentrate on contributing to articles will develop the best discussion skills, and will have the right priorities about what is important on Wikipedia. They tend to value extensive contributions to articles, such as referencing, wikifying, copyediting and addition of content. For the "Articles first" faction, the ideal RfA candidate would have contributed to a number of featured articles and good articles.

Example:

• Oppose. User does not seem to contribute enough to articles. Most of his/her mainspace edits are vandalism reverts, and the answer to Q2 fails to impress. ArticlesFirst 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This faction has been criticised for having excessively high standards, and for ignoring the increasing need for administrators to take on repetitive maintenance tasks such as speedy deletions.

Time and experience

This faction believes that the most important factors in choosing new administrators are time on the project and edits. They argue that lengthy and regular service demonstrates a strong commitment to Wikipedia and extensive experience of policy and process. They tend to prioritise factors such as a high overall editcount, extensive experience in both the mainspace and project namespace, and a long record on Wikipedia (at least four months).

Example

• Oppose. Has only been active for 2 months, and most of their edits were during the last month. Also, not enough edits in projectspace. ExperienceCounts 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Critics of this faction accuse them of editcountitis, and argue that editcount and time on the project do not necessarily reflect a user's competence as an admin. The faction has been criticised for prioritising quantity over quality, and for not looking at the high calibre of some users' contributions.

No big deal

This faction's views centre around the often-repeated Wikipedia catchphrase that adminship is no big deal. They argue that more and more administrators are needed to deal with routine cleanup tasks such as speedy deletions, and that applying excessively high standards during the requests for adminship process is counterproductive and detrimental to Wikipedia.

Example

• Support. Adminship is no big deal, and having fewer than 2000 edits is not a sufficient reason to oppose. NoBigDeal 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This faction has been criticised by those who point out that the decision-making role of administrators has increased over time (particularly with regard to the deletion process), and that anyone promoted to the position of administrator should be demonstrably trustworthy and capable of using the tools well. They argue that the threat of rogue administrators outweighs the need for cleanup tasks to be performed quickly.

Caution

This faction can be seen as the opposite of the "No big deal" faction above. For them, the most important factor in evaluating a candidate in a request for adminship is that the candidate is unquestionably qualified to use the tools. They argue that it is not sufficient for the candidate to be a productive contributor; rather, they must have enough experience of administrator-related tasks to ensure that they will not inadvertently misuse the tools. They are also likely to question the candidate extensively on policy issues, and may be wary of candidates who are too liberal about ignoring all rules. This position is justified by pointing out that administrators have great discretionary power with regard to the deletion process, and that a rogue or incompetent administrator could do great damage to the project.

Example

• Oppose. Little or no participation in XfDs, so we can't be sure that this candidate will close XfDs correctly. Also seems to misunderstand the fair use policy, as demonstrated by answer to question X above. We can't really trust them with the tools. Careful 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This faction has been criticised for having excessively high standards, and for underestimating the urgent need for more administrators to perform routine cleanup tasks, such as speedy deletions. Some argue that any contributor in good standing with reasonable experience can be trusted to use the admin tools, and that each candidate need not be aware of every single area of policy.

Personality

This faction tends to rely less on statistics and the details of the candidate's contribution history, and more on their general impression of the candidate's trustworthiness and judgment. For this faction, a good candidate will have a consistently civil and calm demeanour, will make pertinent and useful comments in policy discussions, and will appear to be "mature". Some members of this faction will consider "outside" factors, such as the candidate's age or professional background (if such information is available). This faction will often argue that asking candidates to "jump through hoops", such as making a certain number of edits or commenting on a certain number of deletion discussions, is pointless, and that the only thing that really matters is that the candidate is sufficiently mature to make good judgments as an administrator.

Examples:

• Support. Although this user may not have the highest editcount, I've interacted with him a few times and he seems civil, helpful and intelligent. I think his professional expertise as a surgeon also helps to demonstrate that he would be a good admin. ITrustHim 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. According to this user's userpage, he is 12 years old, and I'm not sure he's mature enough to be a good admin. Some of his recent comments have been frivolous, and he doesn't seem to take Wikipedia seriously enough. I know he has 15,000 edits, but that doesn't increase my confidence in this candidate. IDontTrustHim 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Critics of this faction argue that adminship votes should not be based on arbitrary, subjective factors such as "maturity", but on a candidate's record on Wikipedia. (However, most voters would concede that it is valid to oppose a candidate who demonstrates a genuinely immature or uncivil attitude.)

Footnotes