From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Danntm's Directory
User space: Home | Talk to Me (talk archives: 1 2 3 4 5) | My Sandbox | Gallery | RFA Guidelines
My Usage of Vandalproof: Reversion Log | My Reversion Stats | Mistaken Reversions
Useful Wikipedia Links: Articles for creation | Userspace warning templates | Report/Ban a vandal | Recent changes | Deletion log | Block log

The purpose of this page is to attempt to better explain, in a central location, my few thoughts on Requests for adminship.

Basic Criteria[edit]

Generally, I will likely support RFA candidated if they satisfy the following criteria:

  • 1,000 cumulative edits, from any assortment of namespaces
    • Almost always expected of nominees, unless there are extremely compelling circumstances.
  • Six months of experience editing under an account
    • This six-month requirement is readily waived/ignored when presented by a high-quality candidate.

I figure that a candidate who's been around long enough to make 1,000 edits and stay for half an year, without causing any major problem, the candidate is decent enough to be trusted with the tools.

As I'm not mean, failure to satisfy either or both of these criteria will tend to draw a neutral.

Negative Factors[edit]

Certain actions will negative impact the chance I will !vote to favor a given candidate, including, but not limited to:

  • Very weak answers to questions or failure to answer questions.
  • Recent history of disruptive, uncivil, vandalizing or other conduct unbecoming an administrator.

On Oppose[edit]

I try to avoid opposing candidates, but in certain circumstance I have found it necessary, and in the future I will likely find it necessary again. I only oppose when:

  • I fear a candidate that I find disagreeable may succeed wihtout additional opposes
  • The negative factors weigh so heavily against the candidate that neutral is not sufficient to express my disagreement with the nomination

Otherwise, I avoid pile-on opposes, even to RfAs that are snowballing to fail, and will instead opine neutral or moral support.