Welcome to my RFA toolbox! Here I keep some tools which are useful to me in identifying if a particular user can be trusted with admin tools.
General Criteria
editWhile this is not a binding list, these are traits of a candidate which will lead me to support or oppose. Exceptional situations will warrant overriding this policy; this is just a general guideline which presents a "good idea" of where I am leaning. I have partially stolen these ideas from Coffee but adapted them to my own beliefs.
Things that will influence me to oppose. | Things that will influence me to vote neutral. | Things that will influence me to support. |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
The editor doesn't use edit summaries 100% of the time. | The editor has promised to use them 100% of the time, during the RFA. | The editor uses edit summaries 100% of the time. |
The editor tags articles incorrectly for CSD. | The editor acknowledges a lack of understanding of CSD policy and does not intend to service this area. | The editor tags articles for CSD per policy. |
The editor has been actively editing for less than 3 months. | The editor has been actively editing for 3-6 months. | The editor has been actively editing for more than 6 months. |
The editor was blocked less than 6 months ago. | The editor was blocked more than 6 months ago. | The editor has never been blocked. |
The editor has a track record of being uncivil. | The editor is usually civil but can break when under pressure. | The editor is able to work well under pressure, and reacts civilly during disputes. |
|
|
|
The editor responds to opposes in an attacking manner. | The editor responds to almost every oppose. | The editor responds to opposes in a civil manner. |
The editor views adminship as power, or a status symbol. | The editor views adminship as a tool for maintenance but also sees it as a way to "lead" other users. | The editor views adminship as helping with maintenance. |
The editor helps out with only a few topics or WikiProjects. | The editor helps out in various areas of the Wikipedia space, but usually sticks to one topic, or WikiProject. | The editor helps out in a wide range of topics and in various parts of Wikipedia. |
The editor has closed XFDs inappropriately, and doesn't seem to have improved. | The editor doesn't close XFDs. | The editor has good knowledge of how to close XFDs and has closed them correctly. |
The editor indicates he/she will not be open for recall and does not give a reasonable justification. | The editor indicates he/she will not be open for recall but gives a reasonable justification. | The editor indicates he/she will be open for recall. |
Questions for candidates
editThese are some questions I may ask to candidates during an RFA. This is not an all-inclusive list; it merely is a set of commonly-applicable questions to candidates.
General questions
edit- Should you be granted adminship, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?
- What is the difference between CSD criterion A1 and A3?
- As reviewing administrator, how would you respond to this and this nomination?
Questions about article content
edit- When, if ever, is uncited content which is present on biographies of living people acceptable?
- When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user who has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?