User:Jaxl/RfA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as my voting pattern on RfA goes, I believe adminship is not a big deal, and I have very flexible standards. This FAQ will elaborate on them a bit.
Contents |
[edit] What are your criteria for supporting/opposing?
[edit] I will support you if...
- You have 1000+ edits.
- You have been around for about 3 months.
- You send me an assortment of baked goods.
Note: If you meet #3, I will automatically support you, no matter what.
[edit] I will vote neutral if...
- I haven't really seen you around, though I probably just won't vote in your RfA (no offense, of course).
- You haven't met 2 out of the 3 above requirements and I have seen you before. Usually I'll throw in a few pointers to let you know what areas you're lacking in.
[edit] I will vote oppose if...
- You if you have vandalized articles in the past, you have applied for adminship very shortly after you have registered an account here (ie. You joined yesterday and have around 10 edits, 90% of which are probably to the RFA page), or you have shown incivility towards other users. As someone who prefers a friendly environment around here, I'm not fond of users attacking others, even vandals.
- There are any other reasons that are too glaring for me to support. If I oppose you even though you've met my support criteria and are not uncivil towards others, I will always state my reasoning when I cast the vote.
Of course, there are some cases that the above criteria cannot be applied to, so I will use discretion when voting (or not voting) in them.
[edit] Do you prefer any sort of particular namespace distribution of my 1000+ edits?
Having a majority of your edits be to the mainspace is perfectly fine, since we are trying to write an encyclopedia here (a fact which many of us have forgotten many times, myself included.) However, I do like to see minimal participation in the User talk, Talk, and Project namespaces.
Now, I've seen a lot of recent voters oppose candidates based on low Project talk space edits. I will never oppose for a low amount of edits in that area. I myself had only 3 edits in that namespace when I was promoted. I do not think that every single user who joins this project should be obligated to join in policy discussions in order for them to be promoted. If you agree with the current policies and follow them, then I see no need for you to join in debates on their discussion pages.
[edit] All of that makes me wonder now...
If I had the same amount and distribution of edits now as I did when I put my RfA in September 2005 (low project talk and majority article edits), as well as the same amount of time spent here (3 months), and I applied for adminship now, would I pass with today's standards?
Probably not. Standards have been rising since last year. The way I see it is that existing editors raise their standards by just a little bit after a few months or so, but as new editors who are unaware of the previous standards see the new ones, they begin to use and subsequently raise those. As such, the standards continue to rise ever so slowly. I just hope we don't get to the point where someone is opposed because they don't have 10,000 edits and 1 year under their belt. I can assure you that you will never see that kind of criteria from me ;).
[edit] What is your take on the One Featured Article criteria?
I don't believe that every single candidate should have written a FA. I haven't, yet I don't believe myself to be an incompetent administrator. While contributing to the encyclopedia itself is always a good thing, there's no reason to deny the admin tools to someone who hasn't written an article with perfect spelling, prose, and footnotes.
[edit] What is your criteria for supporting bureaucrat candadates?
I expect a lot more out of bureaucrats than admins, which means I probably will never apply to be one :P. I will usually support your RfB if:
- You have been an administrator for over a year.
- You have not been uncivil recently. And by recently, I mean not for a few months. I won't hold a mistake you made as a newbie against you, but I will not support anyone with a recent history of incivility.
- You participate in project space often and are involved in the more concensus-oriented areas (voting in RfAs, closing AfD's, etc.)
- You participate in the article space. You do not need to have tons of edits there, nor do you have to have written an FA, but as one of a select few representing a higher authority of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, I expect you to have contributed to actual encyclopedia part of it.
To elaborate on the AfD point: I know there are some admins who like to hit the old AfDs as quickly as possible and close all the obvious-consensus ones before anyone else gets to them (no offense to them, of course; some of us just aren't in the right time zones for that). However, that doesn't really prove a full understanding of consensus since those AfDs contain little discussion and their results are based primarily on the number of keeps/deletes.
A better RfB candidate would be someone who perhaps does not close nearly as many AfDs as the others do but rather stays behind and closes the few difficult, lengthy, poorly-formatted, and sockpuppet-infested discussions that other admins avoid like the plague, as that would serve as a better indication of whether or not the candidate is good at determining an acceptable consensus to all. Obviously, you can't make everyone happy all the time, but if you're able to close a majority of the tough AfDs without generating too much conflict, then I see that as a testament to being skilled in determining consensus from discussion, not just percentages. Such skills are required in a bureaucrat, as RfAs, like AfDs, are not always going to be landslide supports or opposes.
