User:K50 Dude/RfA Criteria
| NavBar | |||||||||
|
I participate in several RfA's. For those of you who don't know what that is, it is a request to become an administrator on Wikipedia. I enjoy doing this, especially after I have nominated myself once before (with 150 edits...LOL) and when it became apparent that you can't become an admin at that point in time, I started participating in RfA's more often. Click the images or links to navigate my userspace, or click "YOUR home page" to return to your Userspace's main page. Photo Gallery • My Watchlist • My RfA (failed) • The "Praise Parlor" • RfA Criteria • YOUR home page =]
| |||||||||
This page is always subject to expansion and further work.
 | This page in a nutshell: If you aren't an obvious WP:NOTNOW candidate or a horrible editor, you have a good chance to earn my support. |
Introduction
[edit]I !vote based on many things. I have looked at four RfA standards and they are all good. I decided to infuse all the ideas that they contained into a rubric for my own use. You may use this or make up one of your own for your use. I don't mind at all!
My rubric is composed of eight categories:
- Edit count, recent blocks, and warnings received and given.
- WP:AFD, WP:PROD, and WP:CSD to prove admin-y tasks.
- Navigateable and intreguing userspace, signature, and edit summary usage to show how advanced they are in the Wiki-Language
- Their answers to Question #1 and how their contributions tie into it.
- All other questions are answered considerably well and, if applied, are correct.
- No persuassive oppose votes.
- Civility on talk pages and keeping everything civil on them, as well as WP:AGF.
- Very active user in the nomination as well as the nominators (NOTE: this only applies to support !votes.
One more tidbit: If you have a comment about this, PLEASE leave it on my talk page, not on this subpage's talk. Thank you!
Strong Support
[edit]- Have 2,000 contributions to the mainspace, no blocks, and work with warnings.
- Works in deletion well, although many not be the main focus.
- Easy to navigate userspace, however still "cool," they have a unique signature. Use edits summaries MORE than ⅞ of the time.
- Work with everything they mentioned in Question #1.
- Answered all questions, optional or reccommended, and all correctly.
- Absolutley no persuasive oppose votes.
- Assumes good faith, and retains civilty with others.
- Looks like a great user and a nom with 800 meaningful edits.
Support
[edit]- Has 1,500 meaningful edits, no blocks in last 6 months, and works with warnings from here and there.
- Works with deletion if that ties into Question #1.
- Has a personallized signature and a userspace with several templates, and use edit summaries ¾ of the time.
- Works with everything they said in Question #1 several times in the last couple weeks, and has an understanding.
- Answers all questions well.
- No persuassive opposes.
- Semi-active nominator or self-nom.
Weak Support
[edit]- Has 1,500 edits and no blocks in last 6 months.
- Works with deletion if that ties into Question #1, however may of made an incorrect speedy recently.
- Has a intermediate to strong understanding of the Wiki-Language thru their userspace, signature, and uses edit summaries ⅜ of the time.
- Question #1 answers tie into their contributions, however possibly loosely.
- Answers all non-optional questions well and/or correctly, and at optional one to their ability.
- Possibly persuassive opposes, however still several supports.
- Retain civility and WP:AGF at all times.
- Nominator with no blocks in last 2 months or self-nom.
Moral Support
[edit]- WP:NOTNOW
- Works with deletions if that ties into Question #1.
- No significant Wiki-Language understanding; use edit summaries ⅓ of the time.
- Answers Q1 to their ability.
- Answers all other questions to their ability
- Persuassive Opposes; several of them.
- Retains a civil manner all the time.
- Self-nom. THERE AREN'T MANY EXCEPTIONS!
Neutral
[edit]- Has no blocks in last 6 months.
- Works with deletions if that ties into Question #1 however has made incorrect nominations recently.
- Uses an edit summary ⅜ of the time.
- Q1 answers tie into their contributions often however mistakes are not rare.
- Answers all questions they could to their ability.
- Very persuadding oppose votes; ⅓ of them are something other than "per..." or something similar.
- Retains a civil manner most of the time.
Weak Oppose
[edit]- More than 1,250 meaningful and manual edits.
- Deletes if that ties into Q1, however several recent deletions are "bad".
- Uses edit summaries more than ½ of the time.
- Q1 answers tie into topics shown in their contribs well, however mistakes are common.
- Answers the questions however may be incorrect.
- Persuadding oppose votes.
- Retains a civil manner thru the majority of their editing.
Oppose
[edit]- Blocks in last 4 months.
- Incorrectly tags articles for deletion often.
- No personallized signature, userspace. 50/50 use of edit summary.
- Q1 loosely ties into the contributions.
- Answers one or more questions wrong.
- Persuassive oppose votes
- Has not assumed good faith more than once recently.
Strong Oppose
[edit]- Blocks in last 4 months.
- No experience in deletion however tags anyway.
- Blatantly no WikiLanguage on WP:UP or WP:SIG; only automatic edit summaries.
- Little or no connection from Q1 and the contribs.
- Answers questions, however incorrectly on one or more.
- VERY PERSUASSIVE oppose votes.
- Minimal amount of civilty for an admin.