61:. The candidate's possession of clue can – as far as I am concerned – be determined from 100 edits, for instance in a case where an editor has averaged 2 substantial edits per working day over the last 3 months, including different subject areas in main space, talk space, policy discussions, and fora.
244:
Still convinced I should become administrator? On the one hand, I am not too excited about the prospect. I already know how the additional tabs and drop-down options look like because our institution runs a wiki. My biggest satisfaction comes with submitting a well-researched start-class article on
180:
but this does not mean I have no opinion. I will typically follow every RfA that goes over the full distance though I am unlikely to !vote in any of them that move into a direction I approve. I will not pile on if it makes no difference, so there are only two reasons for me to voice my opinion:
201:
Edit count and general activity level: I will never make 1000 edits a month. I tend to slightly take offense at my edits being reverted, and for that reason I make sure this does not happen. I know where the "preview" button is. Furthermore, I refuse outright to take up tasks
97:
Let me explain that further. Articles for deletion is possibly the least likely place to be for an editor who is very good at evaluating consensus – the ability is wasted there, unless the admin bit is set. So before becoming admin, the user possibly hangs out at
235:
Demonstration of the need of tools: I do not need the tools, and I find it silly to work in areas where I am disadvantaged by not having them. However, I already close the odd AfD as non-admin, and I reassess CSD taggings if I come across one.
245:
an important topic that nobody else cared about before--this will not change with additional user rights, and this will remain my main focus. I intend to keep my contribution to AN/I at the single-digit edit count it is today.
156:
taggings, placing questionable userboxes, walking into a trap laid out in form of an optional question at RfA, and even the very occasional verbal outburst. However, the saying has a second part which is often forgotten:
111:
I will be very hesitant to support candidates who have been blocked, even if a year or longer ago. I would expect a proper explanation under RfA standard question 3 in this case, and I might nevertheless oppose.
253:
232:
once and found that I do not like it. For me there is too much beating about the bush in FA articles; they are too long and too chatty. I do not enjoy reading them, never mind writing one.
79:
requires 6 edits to place a single template, or 40 edits to publish a half-page stub. I will, however, in all likelihood present a more orthodox oppose rationale in such case.
256:
the ability to quickly get rid of some ill-considered pages would come handy, as would the read access to deleted contributions. If you are admin yourself, or if you are a
248:
On the other hand, I am not afraid of the RfA hell, and I think I can be trusted with minor janitorial work. I believe I know all important policies, and much of the
94:
queue", or any other specific admin task). A clueful user will first read the procedures before acting, and then most likely get it right the first time.
153:
272:
197:
Think again. While I (obviously) believe I fulfill my own criterion, I do not meet those of many others, particularly in terms of:
163:. Making the same mistakes over and over again, or defending them against overwhelming consensus, yes, that's lack of clue for me.
27:
228:, to GA. Don't hold your breath, it is a long way to go, and every red link I'm stumbling over will distract me. I also tested
141:
83:
188:
I can contribute positive, negative, or just plain interesting aspects to the discussion that have not been brought up before.
144:
should know that they exclude themselves from obtaining the mop, usually forever. To assume otherwise I consider lack of clue.
209:
Audited content work: So far I have created stubs, changed sub-stubs to stubs, and brought stubs to start level. I wrote one
103:
214:
237:
119:. It is the ignoring of block warnings and the repetition of mistakes that is an indication of lack of clue to me.
65:
159:
148:
240:(better: preservation) is the area I would scale my involvement in, should I ever be trusted with the buttons.
82:
My understanding of clue extends to the hypothesis that a clueful user could properly close their very first
137:
99:
116:
91:
58:
129:
41:
86:
discussion without ever having participated there before. (Replace "closing AfD" with "blocking a
173:
125:
177:
133:
87:
115:
This does not apply to blocks that have been issued without warning, for instance for
266:
229:
210:
185:
My preferred outcome of the RfA is in danger, and I believe my !vote can change that.
17:
249:
260:
experienced editor in good standing, go ahead and offer your nomination.
225:
64:
I might still oppose candidates with low edit counts, for transcluding a
221:
213:
for the purpose of testing the waters. My long-term aim is to bring
152:, also for administrator candidates. This specifically includes bad
206:
for boosting my edit count, like large-scale spelling corrections.
34:. As I fear mine is far from mainstream, I decided to follow suit.
30:
it has recently become fashionable to publish individual
8:
128:editors, and those who I consider to be
7:
40:Criterion 1 of 1: The candidate has
71:I might oppose a candidate due to
24:
75:. This could happen if an editor
160:..., sed perseverare diabolicum
1:
57:Clue has nothing to do with
273:User criteria for adminship
252:as well. For administering
289:
178:(see here for an overview)
168:Notes on my voting pattern
193:You want to nominate me?
254:our university projects
220:two flagship articles,
68:RfA shows lack of clue.
28:Requests for adminship
26:Among participants at
90:account", "filling a
52:Notes on my criterion
44:, broadly construed.
172:I only infrequently
215:WikiProject Namibia
32:RfA voting criteria
149:Errare humanum est
280:
219:
288:
287:
283:
282:
281:
279:
278:
277:
263:
262:
217:
195:
170:
54:
48:
46:
36:
35:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
286:
284:
276:
275:
265:
264:
242:
241:
233:
207:
194:
191:
190:
189:
186:
169:
166:
165:
164:
145:
122:
121:
120:
109:
108:
107:
80:
73:too many edits
69:
62:
53:
50:
38:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
285:
274:
271:
270:
268:
261:
259:
255:
251:
246:
239:
234:
231:
227:
223:
216:
212:
208:
205:
200:
199:
198:
192:
187:
184:
183:
182:
179:
175:
167:
162:
161:
155:
151:
150:
146:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:Consistently
123:
118:
114:
113:
110:
105:
102:or organises
101:
100:Third opinion
96:
95:
93:
89:
85:
81:
78:
74:
70:
67:
63:
60:
56:
55:
51:
49:
45:
43:
37:
33:
29:
19:
18:User:Pgallert
257:
247:
243:
203:
196:
171:
158:
147:
117:edit warring
76:
72:
47:
39:
31:
25:
142:POV pushers
138:wikilawyers
59:edit count
250:Long Tail
267:Category
238:Deletion
226:Windhoek
66:snowball
222:Namibia
176:at RfA
130:vandals
126:uncivil
77:usually
218:'s
134:trolls
174:!vote
140:, or
16:<
258:very
224:and
204:just
104:RfCs
88:spam
42:clue
154:CSD
92:DYK
84:AfD
269::
230:FA
211:GA
136:,
132:,
106:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.