From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My RFA Voting Standards
Generally, I only vote on closer RFA's. Using the RFA summary, I watchlist any yellow or red requests, then research those that are yellow. I feel an admin should have:
- substantive edits (though I don't think a minimum number per month is necessary - we need admins with broader world expereince who may not be able to spend as much time on wikipedia as they would like),
- sufficient time as a wikipedian to really "get it," and
- interaction with all aspects of wikipedia, but
- contributions to the encyclopedia are much more important to me than edits to wikipedia and talk spaces as long as the candidate shows a firm grasp of wikipedia policy.
I am not into records, so those that look like they should pass don't get any vote from me as I don't have enough time to research everyone out, and refuse to vote based on the opinion of others or to set some record. Thus, I generally vote oppose more frequently than support. I feel that we should focus on the actions of the candidate and how they react to the zealousness of others. Trödel 11:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Makemi RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of
45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on
my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it.
Makemi 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Trödel/RFA,
thank you you for voting on
my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for your comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Although you voted oppose I appreciate your remarks.
¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 06:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
 |
My RfA |
| Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :) |
→AzaToth
09:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
|
RfA Results and Thanks
| Trödel/RFA, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.
--- joturner 05:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
|
 |
My RfA
 |
Hi Trödel. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
Tawker
 |
|
The Minor Barnstar |
| For taking time to vote in a Request for Adminship, it's a minor thing that helps keep this site ticking. Oh, and yes, it passed :) Tawker |
NSLE dismissed my vote from this RfA:[1] Could I ask you to reinstate it? - Richardcavell 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
One of my favorite pictures
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
