57:, and we are not all entirely rational automata. And so RfA is in the state it is in. People bickering about long-forgotten arguments, candidates sometimes being judged more on the amount of edit summaries they fill out than the quality of their recent dispute-resolving behaviour. RfAs can quickly become battlegrounds, with two opposing camps of editors with diametrically-opposed views of a candidate's suitability. Often, the opposers' reasons border on offensive. To me, this represents what Knowledge is not about. It seems to violate three key policies that sit at the heart of our beliefs:
132:, meaning that you need a certain number of edits and a set amount of time on the project in order to get a vote in RfAs. I would advocate 100 edits and 1 month with a registered account. Of course, anyone would be allowed to leave a comment about the RfA in question
144:
away from it being a vote on a user's popularity and towards it being a place where, barring serious concerns, a user should be granted
Adminship rights. This is in line with the "no big deal" idea put forward by Jimbo, and accepted as
78:
are pretty simple, revolving around the sole premise that users with some experience, and with no pattern of evidence to suggest they will abuse it, should be given
Adminship if they are nominated for it.
125:
is going to be hard. As I said before, people are human, and we all bear grudges. In my opinion, though, three things would help the RfA process enormously:
72:
So what are my criteria for RfAs? And how can we move forward so they become less about personalities and more about suitability for
Adminship?
98:, which I would also classify as three months; as such, a good editor should be able to achieve Adminship after three months on the project
158:
86:, spread across the four key namespaces: Article, Article Talk, Project and User Talk. I would say 500 or so is sufficient
138:, although efforts should be made to contact the user via their Talk page and getting them to add a reason
33:
32:
are where
Knowledge gets the most personal, the most vindictive and the most stubborn. To be sure,
8:
40:
62:
17:
96:
A decent period in which no or very few disruptive activities have taken place
152:
66:
58:
28:
43:
says. To be sure, what a user did many months if not years before
47:
rarely be an issue. Indeed, barely anything on its own
102:
For self-nominations, I would up the ante a little:
150:
51:cause anyone to automatically vote "oppose".
136:Disregarding oppose votes with no reasoning
90:A reasonable amount of time on the project
55:But we do not live in a perfect Wiki-world
92:, which I would say is three months or so
14:
151:
23:
26:A minefield at the best of times,
24:
170:
13:
1:
130:No automatic enfranchisement
84:A reasonable number of edits
7:
159:User criteria for adminship
10:
175:
142:Changing the ethos of RfAs
117:6 months of good behaviour
112:6 months on the project
29:Requests for Adminship
39:be "no big deal", as
67:no personal attacks
59:assume good faith
166:
174:
173:
169:
168:
167:
165:
164:
163:
149:
148:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
172:
162:
161:
147:
146:
139:
133:
123:Moving forward
120:
119:
114:
109:
100:
99:
93:
87:
18:User:Batmanand
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
171:
160:
157:
156:
154:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
128:
127:
126:
124:
118:
115:
113:
110:
108:
105:
104:
103:
97:
94:
91:
88:
85:
82:
81:
80:
77:
73:
70:
68:
64:
60:
56:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
35:
31:
30:
19:
141:
135:
129:
122:
121:
116:
111:
106:
101:
95:
89:
83:
75:
74:
71:
54:
53:
48:
44:
36:
27:
25:
76:My criteria
107:1000 edits
34:Adminship
153:Category
63:be civil
145:policy
49:should
45:should
37:should
41:Jimbo
16:<
65:and
155::
69:.
61:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.