User:Orfen/RfA

In the request for adminship process there are plenty of opinions and standards everyone has. I am creating this to outline my criteria and my beliefs on certain subjects. As a disclaimer, I would like to say each and every one of these things stated here are subject to change. This is not a binding way of which I go about my business. I merely wish to outline some things here so as to show everyone my opinion. I would also like to refer to my RfA review which shows my stance on certain opinions.

General opinions
I first would like to get out of the way that my belief is that adminship is not a big deal, in the way that it is not a trophy or the prize for accomplishments someone has done. It is a big deal in the sense that it does require a great deal of trust from the community. I would like to think that I have a thorough process for reviewing each candidate but in the end I believe we need more administrators. If I feel the candidate can be trusted and would be an asset to the community I will support. My criteria is not binding. Each case is a different case and will be reviewed as such.

Process
This is the general process for which I review a candidate:


 * 1) Read nomination statement.
 * 2) Read through the questions (if applicable).
 * 3) Look at edit count, edit summary, and length of time.
 * 4) Review past contributions.
 * 5) Read through oppose !votes (if applicable).
 * 6) Read through support !votes (if applicable).
 * 7) Read through neutral !votes (if applicable).
 * 8) Provide !vote and present opinion.

Please note that I can choose at any time not to abide by this process or shorten the process but this is generally the way I review candidates.

Elaboration
I like to first read the nomination statement to get a general summary of the candidate. This helps me get a sense as to who the candidate is. The questions are optional and therefore I do not require them as looking through the contributions can answer the questions the same, if not better. Nevertheless, I like to read through the answers if the candidate has provided them. I then like to look at how much experience the candidate has and in which areas. This is not a case of Editcountitis, it merely shows me if I think the editor has the experience I think is needed of an administrator. While there shouldn't be a required number of edits a candidate must have, I feel that there are only some things you can learn through experience. I then like to look at the style the candidate edits in through the contributions. To end my investigation I like to look at the other opinions of editors. They may have found something I had missed or perhaps mentioned something that could sway my opinion.

Criteria

 * ~2500 total edits.
 * ~1500 mainspace edits.
 * ~250 Wikipedia namespace edits.
 * 4 months of activity.
 * Civil.

Miscellaneous

 * 100% edit summary is a plus but not required. Each situation is reviewed individually.
 * No blatant copyright violations. Each situation will be looked into but of course new users can make mistakes. Copyright violations are a negative.
 * No blatant vandalism. Each situation will be looked into but vandalism is a negative.
 * Blocks will be looked into. Recent blocks mean automatic oppose. Each case is different, blocks are a negative.
 * Canvassing will be reviewed. Posting in a place you are known to be active generally makes me hesitant even if the post seems neutral. While not all messages requesting users to visit the RfA are canvassing, I will be sure to post my feelings on the situation. Canvassing is a negative.
 * I like to see article writers applying for adminship. While it is not required to have written GAs or FAs, it is a plus.
 * Automated editing tools do not generally affect my decision. I feel they are useful and in the end they are generally semi-automated. You still need to make the decision to do something. You may not have taken as much time as someone who does not use the tool, but it gets the job done. If it is the only thing you do to contribute to Wikipedia it will be a negative.
 * Written essays do not affect my decision.
 * All questions are optional, none are required. If you do decide to answer the original 3 questions, I do expect well thought out answers. All answers are reviewed.
 * Your personal opinions and beliefs do not affect my decision. However, they must be stated reasonably and in a way that does not offend.
 * Willing to be open for recall does not affect my decision but I do view it as a plus.
 * Admin coaching does not affect my decision.
 * Self nominations do not affect my decision.
 * Your nominator and their actions do not affect my decision.
 * A nice clean user page is a plus but not required.
 * Activity in IRC does not affect my decision.

How I !vote
I will either Support, Oppose, or be Neutral. I do not like to do Moral Support, Weak Support/Oppose, or Strong Support/Oppose. I like my decision to be final and as such, Neutral is rare. Also, I do not like to add unnecessary support to nominations looking like they might win. If I really want to comment then I will but I generally choose not to participate. Same goes with oppose. I do not like to create unnecessary pile-on. I do not think I am harsh on candidates but the reason around 1/3 of my !votes are Oppose is because I do not like to create the pile-on. The usual format I like to follow is present my reasons for the way I am voting and to then end it with a positive note. My opinion can be swayed and I always welcome any comments.