User:Elaragirl/AdminCriteria

My arrogant demands for admins. Why anyone would care about such things is beyond me...

Warning: You may not agree with my standards.

If you don't like my standards, do not read them and do not expect my vote.

Disclaimer

DO NOT EVER NOMINATE ME FOR ADMINISTRATOR. IF ASKED, I WILL NOT ACCEPT. IF NOMINATED, I WILL DECLINE. IF BADGERED ABOUT IT I WILL LEAVE WIKIPEDIA.

I am fundamentally unfit to be an administrator on Wikipedia. I am uncivil, inconsiderate of others, POVish, likely to have conflicts of interest, disinclined to deal with stupidty, hostile to trolls and uneducated fuckups, and incapable of holding my tongue. Additionally, my combative nature, loyalty to friends, and sarcastic,acerbic nature make me likely to get into more user conflicts than an admin should. Finally, I firmly belive in admins such as Slim Virgin, MONGO, and Eloquence, which mean I am probably a Cabalist.

For the love of God, there are millions of editors, so for fucks sake don't pick me to be an admin.

Primary Support Markers

These are the things that tend to sway me in favor of voting support.

1. Good grasp of policy: in XfD and RfC, does not misuse things like WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IAR to get their way. Tries to follow both the letter and the spirit of a policy even if they disagree with it.
2. Participation in process: must be active in XfD, in a Wikiproject, and on RfA/RfC. I'd like to see activity in Usertalk space as well.
3. Has an attractive user page: Why? Because it indicates someone is making a home here. People who are good writers and editors rarely have the kind of temperment to deal with people who aren't, and thus make for bad admins.
4. Is a mergist or exclusionist: These reflect values that I like to see in admins
5. Has an extensive history of civility in the face of blatant bating : reason should be obvious

Primary Oppose Markers

On the other hand, when I see these my opinion is usually negative

1. Blatant policy abuses such as using WP:IGNORE in AfD or WP:NOT PAPER when discussing articles that fail other policies such as WP:V or WP:OR : This indicates to me that the person is more intersted in pushing what they want than enforcing the policy. Guy like that don't need no mop.
2. Little to no participation in XfD : what the fuck would you do with the mop? Admins delete shit.
3. Obsessive in use of watchlists and destroying userboxes or userpages, or userfied articles: I am a firm beliver in the idea that userspace is for the user. If we can have 100-article deep, 200kb long articles on the different kinds of fucking mushrooms in Mario Brothers, what the fuck is wrong with a pile of userboxes? People who start shrieking about divisvness and then accuse others of being deletionist pigs when we go after their screed filled articles get bonus oppose points.
4. Blatant hypocrites and anyone suspected of participating in wikitruth , wikipedia review, or encyclopeda dramatica : I shouldn't have to explain this. Yes, of course I fucking participate in Wikipedia Review. Do you see me fucking running for adminship, NO. Admins involved in these projects will either stir shit or , even if they are acting in good faith, some OTHER fuckwad will stir shit. no thank you.
5. People who think adminship is a game or a goal rather than a duty and responsibility.

Automatic Strong Support by Fiat

1. Moderate, openminded centrists. Deletionism is good, but not always preferable in admins.
2. Anyone that Raul, MONGO, Glen S, Improv, Uncle G, Rama's Arrow, Doug Bell, or Daniel Case nominates.
3. Anyone that rabid inclusionist nitwits vote to oppose solely on too much XfD participation.

Disqualification by Fiat

1. Anyone self nominating with less than 4000 edits
2. Anyone who states in their RfA that they think too many articles get deleted'.
3. Anyone Matthew Fenton nominates. This isn't intended as a personal attack, but based on voting patterns at RfA, none of the people tends to support are the types of people I would want in charge of deciding what goes on here.
4. Anyone with the brain damaged inclusionsist outlook that suggests no articles should ever be deleted, even copyvios.

---

Examples

The following admins should be role models to anyone who wants my vote. At one time this section contained a list of bad and really bad admins. This portion has been removed.

Excellent Admins

An excellent admin does not let civility stop him or her from doing what's right. They follow both the spirit and the letter of a policy. They are not engaged in stupid dick-waving contests of "is my band notable" but are focused on larger scale issues. The fact that some of them are very disliked only makes me admire them more. This is NOT to say all of the admins below are uncivil, many of them are VERY civil. But they place the good of Wikipedia above what's good for them personally. While there are many, many good admins on Wiki, I'm seeing more and more than only a few are willing to get themselves lambasted, abused, and even ridden out of Wikipedia just to do what is right.

Note that this is not a list of my friends, since it doesn't include the admins I'm friends with, such as Doug Bell. This is a list of admins I admire for their contribs.

1. User:Eloquence Does what's right, whether you like it or not.
2. User:Improv Our Dark Lord of Common Sense and "Gee, this isn't what belongs here".
3. User:Cyde Civility !> Common Sense. But he's usually very civil.
4. User:Firsfron Firm. Polite. Not full of himself or his adminship.
5. User:Lupo Has yet to make a mistake that I have seen.
6. User:Mackensen Has no patience for bullshit or trolling, but will put people in their place.
7. User:JoshuaZ Common sense and an eye for what's proper.
8. User:SlimVirgin Puts up with more bullshit than most people combined and still writes.
9. User:Glen S Cool, collected, never acts in haste. Stands up for what's right.
10. User:Uncle G Master of the Policy, both in letter and in spirit.
11. User:Nae'blis Appearantly has a fine eye for the smallest detail, but is fair as well.
12. User:Durin Willing to stand up for what's right, and fighting the good image fight.
13. User:JzG for a number of reasons, including standing up for what's right.

The Tree of Logic Is Watered With the Blood of the Sensable

1. User:MONGO Stripped of his bit by ArbCom in a decision that many disagreed with. The sanctamonous bullshit proclaimations that "ArbCom got it right" from some editors here are the same shit you see on the Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica, which pretty much has hardened my opinion about the authors of such comments all around.