User:Riana/RfA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I figured I should write 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. Note that this does not mean excessive wikilawyering, but I prefer to see people err on the side of caution and disregard rules iff it stands in the way of what's the right thing to do.
- Civility - 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. Still, I'd prefer you were like Elara and called a brick of shit exactly that, rather than coddle maniacs.
- Disputes - 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. Coolness 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.
- 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 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) - Successful RfA, 82/0/2. Co-nommed with Runcorn and Mike1.
- Daveydweeb (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) - Successful RfA, 72/0/1. Co-nommed with Spawn Man.
- James086 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) - Successful RfA, 47/0/0. Co-nommed with Majorly.
- Michaelas10 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) - Successful RfA, 77/5/0. Co-nommed with Arjun01
- Have offered to nominate
- Looking at
- Support by default
If you are nominated by a certain group of usrs 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 users/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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cla68 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 5 April 2007 12:18 | None | Details |
| JuJube | 31 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 5 April 2007 00:34 | None | Details |
| Akhilleus | 38 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 4 April 2007 14:15 | None | Details |
| Anynobody | 10 | 17 | 8 | 37% | 4 April 2007 02:05 | None | Details |
| PullToOpen | 42 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 3 April 2007 23:49 | None | Details |
| Earle Martin | 24 | 42 | 11 | 36% | 3 April 2007 12:15 | None | Details |
| Xdamr | 39 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 2 April 2007 00:33 | None | Details |
| Anthony.bradbury | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 30 March 2007 23:07 | None | Details |
| ais523 | 63 | 0 | 0 | 100% | 30 March 2007 17:09 | None | Details |
