User:3PPYB6/RfA criteria

I don't ask for too much.

Wikipedia is quickly losing administrators. When I first joined, there were 1,082 administrators. Now, there are only 855. Soon it will be 500. Then 100. Then 0.

Because of these sharp losses, my criteria for RfA are very loose.

Here they are:

1. Significant experience. You can either demonstrate this by spending significant time content creating/expanding, or by making small, automated edits that add up over a long time.
2. No blocks/bans in the past six months. Self-requested blocks/voluntary bans don't count. I actually would like to see a reformed vandal become an admin someday as it would demonstrate that vandals can learn.
3. >70% accuracy at AfD, to demonstrate mastery of the deletion process.
4. >5 articles, rich-text longer than 5,000 bytes, properly sourced/formatted. No CSD/AfD/PROD notices on the last three. How you create it, I don't care—ContentTranslation, directly, draftspace, who knows?
5. Has good communication skills, assumes good faith, and does not bite the newcomers. Administrators are supposed to welcome and help new editors, not drive them away with the threat of being blocked. If you are an admin who bites and assumes bad faith, I strongly advise you to rethink yourself.
6. Maturity, preferably >18-years-old style. I have no objection to a 10-year-old administrator; it's their maturity that matters. At the same time, you can be 30 and act like a 5-year-old. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG or a platform for teenagers, it's a free encyclopedia (I get it, the Wikipedia namespace and the communication really makes it seem like one).
7. Can listen to reason. If there is something wrong with their editing, they should take it gracefully.

There. That was all. Like Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. What, you expected more? Nope.

I will not adhere to these criteria 100% of the time. If you demonstrate a clear need for the tools such as being active on SPI, filing far too many AIV/UAA reports, or something like that, I will definitely support.

What I default to

• If you do not demonstrate absolute flaws in your character, I default to supports—I mean, how many more administrators are we going to lose?
• If something seems off, usually I default to neutral. I don't like opposing RfAs, since they typically get badgered and you need serious rationales for that.
• However, if you clearly do not seem fit for an administrator's toolset, then I will oppose. These types of votes are typically less badgered.

Again, Wikipedia is losing administrators far too fast. If you meet the criteria above, or you have a serious need, rest assured, I'll support you. Good luck ;) — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 23:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)