User talk:Netoholic/Admins

P3d0
Hi Netholic,

I just wonder, did you meet your own standards when you became an admin? I'm afraid I'm not even close, but I still think I'd make a good admin, and I think there's some evidence out there to support me. I don't have any particular interest in editing User pages, and realistically I'll probably stick to my areas of interest for the most part (mostly Science), but I don't mind doing my share of grunt work. Does my focused interest disqualify me as an admin?

Anyway, I just want to make sure you're not unknowingly ruling out a lot of good admins with your high standards. I understand that your criteria would produce ideal admins, but I think Wikipedia is more about collaboration and compromise than about perfection. --Doradus


 * Well, I am not an admin at this time. I do feel I meet my own strict requirements, though.  I think we have a lot of good people on here, both admins and non-admins. I think that the fairly strict set of "guidelines" I use are fair to those who want to bring the most to this project. I've seen a lot of admins promoted who actively "admin" for about a week, and then drift off.  I think that is a symptom of promoting too early.   All this being said, I give every admin candidate a fair and thorough evaluation, and I can tweak my own guidelines a little bit if I find someone who can benefit WP most.  -- Netoholic @ 07:18, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think that's a very reasonable answer. I also got your message on my User page and I will consider it once I manage to load my RFA page.  (Browser is very slow this morning...)  Thanks for taking the time to reply.  --Doradus 15:39, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

admin criteria
I found your list from RFA, and while I think that your standards are fairly high, it occurred to me that if you take the time to dive into a user's edit history, it would be helpful to post your findings (the objective numbers at least, plus the 'structure' of edits) under 'comments'. I considered voting on RFA, but excepting cases that are obvious anyway, it seems like a good deal of work to really find out enough about the user to form a solid opinion. So I think if somebody did dig up this information, it will save others some time to have it posted right there on RFA. Re 'standards', I really just see admins as janitors, i.e. they are not entitled to decide unilaterally, they rather just carry out decisions taken in polls or discussions, along the lines of "This should be no big deal," as Jimbo has said. regards, dab 14:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to do that. I've posted more precise "number-crunching" in only one case (a break-down of edits for each namespace), but I didn't want to be accused of massaging them to my POV. I also (contrary to how it seems) don't want to reduce a contributor down to the bare numbers.  There are some things that you'll only see looking at their specific edits.  If you have any ideas on what sorts of information you'd like to see, let me know.
 * As for your last point, everyone "says" adminship is no big deal, but the fact is that everyday admins do decide things unilaterally - particularly with speedy deletion and blocking. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it's true. -- Netoholic @ 15:01, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)