User:WatchingYouLikeAHawk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Adminship Requirements
Here is my criteria for voting in a Request for Adminship:
1. Your name may not be WatchingYouLikeAHawk.
2. You must have not had any blocks in the past 6 months or the past 5,000 edits and you must be free from probation currently.
3. An improved editor (e.g. one who has had problems but instead of getting a new moniker decided to improve his behavior, over the course of at least 6 months) will deserve a strong support if he or she meets all other criteria.
4. You must have been an editor for at least 6 months since your first edit.
5. You must have at least 5,000 mainspace edits.
6. I do not care whether or not you have participated in the Wikispace.
7. In general, I am willing to not consider your conduct at all prior to an arbitrary date if that will get you to meet my criteria.
8. Two controversies not handled professionally but not involving blocks will be disqualifing if they are both within my reviewable period of 6 months or the past 5,000 mainspace edits.
WatchingYouLikeAHawk 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Decision on mainspace edits
My decision on requiring 5,000 mainspace edits stands. We need quality in adminship, not quantity. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiWatch
In the course of my time on Wikipedia, I have come across inaccuracies and bias so blatant that it could not have been put in there as an accident. Certain administrators have even created an enviornment where such poor quality is encouraged. So, in a bold move, I am going to, on my user page, create documentation of any error so grave, either in adminship or "editorship" that brings disrepute to Wikipedia. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservapedia
While I have not taken a position on all of the points outlined in Conservapedia, I find these criticisms of Wikipedia to be quite intriguing. My fundamental belief in fixing errors in bias is to ensure that the information is factual. Furthermore, I believe some, though not all, of their criticisms rests on this premise. And before you criticize conservapedia for creating a new Wiki, may I link you to Dkospedia and Demopedia?
WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
