User talk:Dendodge/Admin criteria

Comments by PeterSymonds
I was reading this today and found it relatively interesting. I've not seen a criteria which goes into detail quite as much as this, so it was interesting to see your viewpoint on what factors make a good admin. Therefore I thought I'd offer my comments about certain aspects, particularly as I disagree on some points.

A point system is a novel idea, but it can be counter-productive. Rigidly sticking to a certain amount of points in some areas can overlook finer details and exceptions. But as I say, this is personal opinion.

As for the individual points of the criteria:
 * (A) is a point I agree with.
 * (B) is more or less accurate, though I know a number of administrators who passed with less, and are nothing but productive. Edit count is an error in which one should emphasise trust judgement, rather than numbers, as was proved in Lustiger seth's RfA.
 * (C) is generally a big plus, but may or may not show a user's ability to handle tools. Plenty of rollbackers are unsuitable candidates for blocking, protecting and deleting, for example.
 * (D) is something I generally disagree with. The only additional user rights that come before the admin flag are account creator and IPblock-exemption. When I passed RfA, I had no experience or need for this extra flag, mainly because it was given out per WP:AGF rather than trust. IPblock-exemption is no indication of trust at all; it's just a technical tool to override IP hardblocks, which any relatively established user can ask for.
 * (E), I believe, is overly harsh. 2 years is a long expectation for reform, and again, it's very much a judgement call. Cirt passed RfA with two known edit warring accounts. This was an extreme case, and yet consensus showed that Cirt could be trusted now. A number of blocks within 2 years are for smaller things, mistakes, one-offs, which are never likely to happen again. I would advise re-evaluating your instantaneous oppose in this case, and look at the factors and, more importantly, a pattern.
 * (F) is a judgement call; no issues with this.
 * (G) per above.
 * (H) While admin coaching is sometimes productive, it's not always necessary.
 * (J) No issues.
 * (K) "Useful commentary" is, I believe, important on any community discussion, be it AN, ANI, HD, BN, etc. AN/ANI as specifics are marginally important, especially if the candidate expresses a desire to work there, but useful discussion has several meanings.
 * (L) Per above.
 * (M) I don't quite know what that means. Do you mean an article for a WikiProject? Organisation and maintenance of a WikiProject? Talk page discussion of a WikiProject? Or all three?
 * (N and O) Article point scoring is something I'm generally against (ironically), but nonetheless, a good and meaningful effort and contribution to a milestone is, in my opinion, far more important than many other factors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * (P) Per above.
 * (Q) A plus, sometimes, but point-scoring based on barnstars is dodgy. I believe you can't attach a numerical value to a barnstar; some people get more than others.
 * (R) Interesting.
 * (S) There are two ways to look at this. Lustiger seth, for example, was granted adminship per his dedicated contributions as an administrator on de.wiki (and his promise to only work at SBL). On the other hand, other users who have the flag on other projects won't stand a chance at RfA, for varying reasons. It's a case of judgement over numbers.
 * (T) Not a factor I'd ever consider.
 * (U) No issues.
 * (V) Theoretically you should see a "reasonable" oppose per your review of the candidate, but occasionally it's missed. Another case of judgement over numbers; some oppose comments can instantly change opinions.
 * (W) A moot point. As most of us don't know each other in real life, the criteria above would be used to establish trust, but this is your personal criteria and not one for me to comment on further.
 * (X) Fair point.
 * (Y) Impossible to comment on.

I believe attaching numbers to what is essentially a discussion about judgement and trust is generally counter-productive. These should be factors to influence your opinion, rather than to specify a percentage at which you can "oppose", "weak[ly] oppose", "weak[ly] support", etc. Essentially, the strength of the support doesn't matter, it's the validity of your comment that comes after that really matters. But this is just my personal opinion, and I'll end my commentary now. :) Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree thta 2 years without a black is very harsh. In fact it's rather close minded to blindly oppose all people who have been blocked in the last two years.-- Patton 123  14:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter makes some reasonable points. One thing I'd like to comment on is the 2/3/5 split for DYK/GA/FA. Leaving aside any debates about whether giving points for articles is a good idea, I would say that 'significant contribution' to a GA is worth far far more than nominating a DYK, which at minimum can take very little effort, judgement or skill at all. Even writing one is not terribly hard. The fact that they scale differently with increasing numbers is interesting, though. Without intending to put motives in your mouth, it has the appealing effect of rewarding a candidate for having tried DYK out, as it were, but not giving them tons of points for cranking out hook after hook - while GAs and FAs keep on giving. A nice feature, but I still think if I was looking at one candidate with 1 DYK and 0 GAs and one vice-versa, the difference on my non-existent scale would be more than one point.
 * Then again, perhaps all this says is that I work at DYK on a regular basis but still only dream of writing a GA. Who knows? Olaf Davis (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * C and D are simply to show that the user has a level of general trust. I suppose you're right about E - I'll go and change that as soon as I finish this. I understand that admin coaching is in no way necessary, which is why it is worth so few points, but I feel that it is a good thing and should be taken into account. M refers to any useful contribution to a WikiProject at all - be it article work, project administration, uploading images, or something else entirely. The reason I included the WikiProject part was that it can show good communication skills and an ability to work closely with others. Q was something I came up with off the top of my head - and I do ignore barnstars I see as useless (a few of mine would be dropped there). S shows trust and MediaWiki experience, which is why I included it, and T shows trust (it doesn't count if it's a person's own website). V is just a way for me to take into account others' opinions. W is mainly based on previous experience with the user and/or a quick look through their contribs - it used to be my only criterion, so I kept it. Hope that's explained a bit more. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, Lustiger Seth would be an exception. I would either have added 70 points to field Y or scored him based on another project, as he certainly deserved the tools. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuetral
You have no "Neutral" result in your formula, only S/O/SS/SO. Was that deliberate? If so, why? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral is anything between the 'oppose' and 'support' counts. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Question
How many points if E, F, and W are satisfied?--It's me...Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 23:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * None—it's just an oppose if they aren't. Den dodge T\C 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)