User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although I am not an administrator myself, I think I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know who is admin material and who is not. Below are my personal standards of what I look for when voting. If you would like to see what other users look for when voting, check out this page.
Contents |
[edit] My standards
[edit] Requirements
The elements below are all required for my support.
- Should have an edit count of at least 3,000.
- Should have at least 1,500 mainspace and Wikispace edits combined.
- Be registered to Wikipedia for at least 5 months.
- No involvement in edit wars.
- No warnings of any kind.
- A clean block log.
- An exception will be made if user is blocked accidentally.
- Always acting civil.
- 85% major and 85% minor article edit summary usage.
- Handles stress well.
- I put the element above as a requirement because as an admin, you'll be exposed to more stress and it's important to know how to handle it.
- A friendly user that won't abuse his/her power.
- A good understanding of what an admin does.
[edit] Positives
Note that these elements are not required but will increase the chance of me (and maybe others) support you.
- RC patroller/vandal fighter.
- Newpage patroller.
- Voting in AFDs and RFAs.
- Good answers to RFA questions.
- A member in at least one WikiProject and/or Esperanza.
- An eye-catching signature.
[edit] Negatives
Note that if you meet one of the elements below, it does not necessarily mean that I'll oppose your request but you should have more positives than negatives.
- Not a member of at least one WikiProject or Esperanza.
- Bad answers to RFA questions.
- Answers show that you have no use for admin tools.
- Lack of interest in being an admin.
[edit] How I vote
After reading your edit count and the answers you provided to the questions, I determine whether to support your request, oppose it or vote neutral.