User talk:Realist2/RfA Criteria

Kinda harsh...

In looking it over, I realized that not only would you have opposed my RfA back when it ran, but you'd still oppose my RfA if I were to run again now (for whatever reason). #7 would tank me pretty badly.

Perhaps they're a bit too stringent? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in discussion with someone about modifying #7 to include DYK's. Despite my own article building I've never been involved with the DYK process. I will be working on one with someone shortly to get a greater understanding of the process. I will then incorporate the DYK's. — Realist² 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 3 GA's or 1 FA is too much to ask for at all, really, considering we are actually about encyclopaedia-building. Although, I guess it may be benefitial to revoke that point in someone who is excellent in all areas of Wikipedia except article building? We have many great administrators who do not work on articles but who are great dispute resolvers etc. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd still fail #7, even if you included DYKs. Simply put, I'm a wikignome; I generally follow behind and make very, very tiny edits that improve the article, but nothing grand or major. I'm still plenty active in the article namespace, though; out of 28228 edits, I've got 9023 to the encyclopedia. I'm just trying to point out that people can be incredibly beneficial to the overall Wikipedia project without being major encyclopedia builders.

Honestly, I think you'd be better off striking it entirely; every candidate is different, and unlike some of your more general ones (like the activity-based criteria), it would give you cause to oppose perfectly good editors. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone like User:Jaysweet ran for admin I would support him even though he doesn't build articles because his dispute resolution is so great. He's a rarity though unfortunately. GA's really aren't that time consuming, tiny article can pass GA. Like I said I will be adding DYK's to the list as well making it a little more open. I just like article builders, ultimately a good article builder is more beneficial to wikipedia than some admins. I think it's very important that admins have respect for the writing process before they get access to the delete button. That's from personal experience. — Realist² 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Respect" for the writing process is very different from "ample first-hand knowledge". However, as long as you're aware of the potential pitfalls of #7 (and, by your own admission, you are willing to make exceptions), then my concerns are fairly allayed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be curious about someone who works specifically on improving articles in a small way. That would be via copy editing, grammar, and reference/style/MOS adherence. While this person may not be someone who drives an article to FA/GA, they still contribute heavily to the overall "reviewed" success of an article. In my article work, I focus on mainly content and reference additions. However, after the content is added, I rely heavily on these few and talented editors to clean up the prose. Their contributions rarely result in a gold star or green badge, but yet they perform an invaluable service to the encylopedia. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, copy editors are very important. Recently I got Michael Jackson to featured states. User:Kodster did not add any content to the article, however he copy edited the entire thing about 6 times and specific sections even more. He came to me and asked if he was entitled to add a featured star to his own user page for his work improving the article, I said "hell yes". — Realist² 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That's quite an accomplishment, considering the number of readers the Michael Jackson article must have. Good job. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

←I have noticed some of your recent opposes, and I just wanted to mention that I think one GA is a heckuva lot more than no GAs (I'm in the latter category and I'm finding tackling my first to be a big mental challenge). I think that the experience gained by being the substantial contributor to a GA would give a lot of depth to an RfA candidate; I'm not sure if three is the best possible standard, given that we need more admins. Kudos to you for articulating your standards, however. Darkspots (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for paying attention to my opposes, at the end of the day we all look for something different in an admin, I don't want identical breeds or clones of the same type. Someone has to drum the "article building" reason, if I'm the lone figure in that too bad. My opposes are way more thought out that most of the RfA cabal who use that page as either a torture rake or a place to get chummy with the RfA elite. Not me, I just want an admin who can write an article, format a reference correctly, understands BLP effectively, can handle controversial topics, can resolve disputes and doesn't use words like faggot. Not too much to ask for in my opinion. Lets stop pretending that admin "isn't a big deal", it's not a huge deal but it shouldn't be a walk in the park either. We are the 7th most viewed site on the internet or something like that.— Realist² 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Relax criteria

I made an alteration here & and another here. — Realist² 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)