Jump to content

User:K50 Dude/RfA Criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 GalleryMy WatchlistMy RfA (failed)The "Praise Parlor"RfA CriteriaYOUR home page =]


This page is always subject to expansion and further work.


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:

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.