User:Riana dzasta/RfA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I figured I should make one of these, seeing as I tend to offer my 2 cents at a lot of RfAs. If you've been snooping through my subpages and crashed into this, please read on and offer me any criticism you want. It's really a work in progress, and I've often !voted without adhering to these particular (arbitrary) standards.
So, the following are the things I'd like to see in a prospective candidate.
- Policy - following process even if you disagree with it. Does not misinterpret IAR and SNOW.
- Civility - seriously, an absolute must. You don't have to run around handing out barnstars and hugs - you just have to treat people the way you want them to treat you. It's not that hard.
- Disputes - Probably in direct contradiction to what I've just written. I would appreciate seeing some attempt at dispute resolution, whether on user talk or talk space. Admins may come under fire for their actions from time to time, so I'd like to be sure that you're capable of handling that. Civility in the face of baiting = enormous tick.
- Participation in XfDs - Seems like a lot of what administrators do involves deleting/undeleting content. Since this is the case, I'd like to see some evidence of participation in XfDs, just so I know you have a reasonable handle on policy. A bit of NPP would be nice, too, hopefully with no more than 10 articles incorrectly marked {{db}}. And you should definitely tell an article-writer if their work has been SD-ed or AfD-ed. I will probably vote neutral if a user is excessively inclusionist. Admins delete. Let's not make it much more complicated than that.
- Vandalism patrol - again, seems to take up a large chunk of a sysop's time. Accurate, helpful reversions, followed by warnings on the vandal's talk page and welcome messages if it seems to be a newly registered user testing, will earn a big tick in my book. OK, so you don't have to warn for everything, but {{bv}}-worthy edits should be discussed with the vandal.
- Some evidence of actual article-writing - I know, I know, it's purely a technical status - as Davidcannon stated on my talk page a while ago, 'it simply lifts a few security features'. But if you've never written an article, are you in a position to comment about the worthiness of other people's? I'm not going to as far as 1FA - it's a fine principle, and I agree with it up to a point, but seriously, not all of us are article-writers. I'd just like to see some evidence of attempting to build the encyclopedia, rather than just hacking away at the nonsense. Even a few stubs and rewriting crappy articles will convince me on this point.
- Edit count - hmmm. This one really does depend. Just because you have 12,000 edits doesn't mean you need to be an administrator. However, I'll probably !vote 'neutral' if you've got less than 2,000. This isn't an editcountitis thing. Fewer than that, and it's harder for me to judge whether you actually need the tools, or whether you'd use them well.
- Length of service - At least 4 months; I need to know that you're gonna stick around!
- Communication - apart from the civility thing, I'd just like to see edits in user talkspace which aren't vandalism warnings. Like it or not, admins are the public face of the encyclopedia - often the first person a new user will become acquainted with is an admin. I'd like to see that you're actually capable of sounding human over the Internet.
- CAT:AOR - unless you're doing something horribly wrong, this will earn at least a few points on my scale.
That seems to about cover it :) They're a bit scatty, but I don't stick to these very strictly. There are always exceptions to prove the rule :) If you have any questions about this, or think they suck and should be massively overhauled, tell me.
- Wikipedians I have nominated for adminship
- Husond - Successful RfA, 82/0/2. Co-nommed with Runcorn and Mike1. Notes: superb vandal-fighter. Blocks evil IPs and vandal-onlys. Incredibly nice guy. Wrote stubs. AfD junkie. Edit count at time of RfA - 8000-something; length of service - ~4 months (plus time on other wikis). CAT:AOR - no.
- Daveydweeb - Successful RfA, 72/0/1. Co-nommed with Spawn Man. Notes: New page patroller, and a good one. Too new to judge blocks. Another nice guy. GA - personal computer game. Complete AfD junkie. Edit count at time of RfA - 4000 something; length of service - active 7-8 months. CAT:AOR - not yet... unknown whether he will or not, haven't asked.
- Support by default
If you are nominated by a certain group of admins whom I trust, respect and hold in particularly high regard, that's a guaranteed support. I'm not into naming names, but they're about 10-15 admins whom I have consistently seen doing the right thing by Wikipedia and Wikipedians, and I have not faulted their judgement so far. I'll trust them to nominate a strong candidate.
| Username | S | O | N | S% | Ending | Possible duplicate voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TonyTheTiger | 4 | 1 | 2 | 80% | 19 December 2006 01:40 | None | Details |
| Dina | 29 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 18 December 2006 17:25 | None | Details |
| Cbrown1023 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 18 December 2006 00:45 | None | Details |
| Brian New Zealand | 23 | 10 | 7 | 70% | 17 December 2006 01:27 | None | Details |
| Royalguard11 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 16 December 2006 22:30 | None | Details |
| Tonywalton | 30 | 0 | 1 | 100% | 15 December 2006 15:04 | None | Details |
| Pmanderson | 31 | 28 | 8 | 53% | 15 December 2006 09:14 | None | Details |
| Kchase02 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 14 December 2006 07:19 | None | Details |
| Ceyockey | 41 | 1 | 0 | 98% | 14 December 2006 03:12 | None | Details |
| Davidruben | 47 | 10 | 5 | 82% | 13 December 2006 02:00 | None | Details |
| J.smith | 47 | 1 | 0 | 98% | 12 December 2006 16:55 | None | Details |
