User talk:Jasper Deng/Voting on an RfA

Voice opinions here.

Feedback
It's good to have feedback  like this from  users. Yes some of us do have criteria. I do. However, my criteria are in  fact  very  flexible and never applied rigorously. I think  content creation  is important  because the style of a candidate's articles will  demonstrate that they know the basics of page format, layout, and above all  referencing. If they haven't  done much  content  work, we have nothing  to  judge whether they  understand these things. I come down hard, for example, on  candidates who  have created articles that  are still  tagged and not  cleaned up. I don't  think  1,000 edits is enough  to  demonstrate this. They will also  need to have demonstrated that  they  have been sufficiently  active in  page patrol, deletion debates, moves, and redirects. They also  need to  have sufficient  dialog  on  their talk  pages to  show that  they  are clear headed and civil, and know how to  advise other users -  some new contributors might  be university  professors or industry bosses, and they  deserve respect. If I see a lot  of 'teen-talk' wen answering  questions about  why  an article has been deleted for example, perhaps there is still  some way  to  go  with  acquiring  the level of maturity  that  demonstrates that Wikipedia is a serious project. It takes me up  to  an hour to  research  and make my  mind up  how I  will  vote.

I don't  think  admins vote 'oppose' because they  want  to  keep  adminship  a closed club. All admins know that we don't  have enough  admins. The 'hate' and 'I don't like him/her' votes come from users who  have not  understood what  a serious process RfA  is. If anything, we should probably consider implementing  some controls on  who  can vote. Just my  thoughts. --Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback, part deux
I disagree with this page. It comes off as generalizing and naive. Some statements in particular with which I strongly disagree are:
 * "You should support regardless of edit count if the count is a thousand or higher."
 * What does this mean? That I should support any user with 1,001 edits?
 * "Only oppose a user for extreme cases of potential mishaps like blocks."
 * So you should only oppose users who have been blocked, but not those who frequently misapply CSD tags?
 * "You should oppose a user who has never done dispute resolution properly and one who does not get involved in vandalism fighting at all."
 * Vandalism fighting is a very small part of adminship. If a user has no desire to work on AIV or RfPP or regularly deal with vandals as an admin, why is this necessary?
 * "In addition, judge users by their quality in the past two months or so ..."
 * So you should support users who were jerks three months ago but then suddenly turned to angels just to get your support in their RfA?
 * "I disdain strict personal RfA criteria. I think the criteria of most users with such criteria defined are too quantitative and not qualitative. In addition, you should not vote oppose just because the user did not achieve a minor part of your criteria. If you do have criteria, considering ignoring it for a little amount of time while you actually critique the user on quality."
 * This seems to contradict the rest of your essay.
 * "In general, do not support a user on basis of a single reason."
 * So you should not support a user if your reason is "I believe they will be a good administrator"? That would sum up every other detailed reason there is to support, I imagine.

This page is styled as a "voting guide". I do not consider that appropriate, as it is really your personal list of opinions. "You should ..." does not come off well with me, because I should not do some of the things listed here. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * None of any of this criteria is set in stone. I did not intend that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I deliberately avoided being as blunt as Fetchcomms, but his points are valid, he is a very experienced user, and I greatly respect his opinions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to move your essay to a page name that sounds less instructional, and which is more neutral and implies that it is only your opinion, such as simply User:Jasper Deng/RfA criteria like most of us do. Try also replacing each instance of 'you should...' with 'I believe that...' . and then see how it reads. Kudpung (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)