User:Squeeps10/On RfX
No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
Adminship really is no big deal at all. But that doesn't mean we should just give it to everyone. These are my criteria to give you my !vote.
Criteria[edit]
RfA[edit]
So you want to be an admin? Well that's fantastic! I like to !vote support. I really do. But in order for me to do so, I'd like to see some things:
1. I like to see at least 365 days of active editing. I define active as an average of two edits per day.
2. Clean block log for two months. Mistake blocks are an exception.
3. If this is a second, third, etc RfA, I'd like a three month gap between this one and your most recent one.
4. 90% or more usage of edit summaries.
5. At minimum, 10,000 total edits, and 30% of total edits are to mainspace articles.
RfB[edit]
But what if you wanna be a bureaucrat? First, you have to be an admin already. Then,
1. You have 730 days of active editing and have been an admin for 365 days.
2. Clean block log from two months before you became an admin. Mistake blocks are an exception.
3. If this is a second, third, etc RfB, I'd like a four month gap between this one and your most recent one.
4. 90% or more usage of edit summaries.
5. At minimum, 20,000 total edits and 33% of edits are to mainspace articles.
Things that change your strength as a candidate[edit]
I won't !vote support or oppose based solely on these, but they might sway my !vote.
Things that add to your strength[edit]
1. Having one or more co-nominators. Having someone else nominate you is one thing, having multiple people willing to indelibly tie their names to yours gives your RfX so much more credibility in my book.
2. Being one of the best at what you do. Whether it's article creation, CSD tagging, or NPP, if you're recognized as one of the best editors in your primary field(s), I'm way more likely to !vote support.
3. Being a kind and welcoming editor. Things like kindly letting new accounts know what they did wrong, trying to talk it out with someone before reporting them to a noticeboard, and staying out of edit wars is a great way to make me like you.
4. Having a clear use for the tools. Blocking vandals, protecting articles, or mediating disputes, if your favorite areas would be a lot easier for you to work on with admin tools, I'm liable to like you as a candidate a lot more.
Things that remove some strength[edit]
1. Self-nominating. Usually (but not always), self noms are just hat collecting. The don't usually really need the bit, they just want the clout.
2. Not being really good at something. Be really good at at least one area before applying, please. You don't have to be Tom Brady, but you should at least be Andy Dalton.
3. Being rude. Biting, immediately going to a noticeboard, or constant edit warring are all negatives.
4. Not needing the tools. If your area of work wouldn't be made a lot easier to work in with admin tools, I'm liable to suspect a hat collector.
Disclaimer[edit]
I reserve the right to modify or disregard these entirely at any time and I am not binding myself to them. These criteria are designed to show competency, not expertise. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect a willingness to learn and grow, as well as to be civil and admit it when you're wrong. Wikipedia is one of the greatest inventions of the 21st century and we can't allow it to be ruined by incompetent, stubborn administrators. But we can remember that we're all human and that perfection is impossible. If I'm on the fence, I'll typically go with consensus. For example, if your RfA has 74% support, I'll go with Support. But if it has 47% support, I'll go with Oppose. I'll only do this if I can't make up my mind for myself. There are other criteria, this is just a baseline. If your answer to a question worries me, there is some sort of recent controversy involving you, etc, I'll use my better judgement.
And yes, I know, I'm being a bit gruff here.