User talk:Pseudo-Richard/RFA criteria

Masssiveego RFA Criteria
To achieve my criteria standards is always by choice in what you choose to believe and make happen. If you wish to meet my criteria, I must see a clean talk page, a reasonable user page, pass inspection of your posts, post counts, Wikipedia activities.


 * I probably have one of the sparser User pages but my Talk Page is pretty clean. I think I pass on the rest.

After that I must find signs being part of the Wikipedian community. If I find any sign of abuse, warnings, or otherwise misguided templates, I typically weigh them against possible future occurences of such activities, and if I find the user unwillinging or incapable of changing their habits they fail my inspection.


 * One copyvio in my first days as a Wikipedia editor. Otherwise, no abuse or warnings since then.

After that I check for barnstars, awards determine if they are indeed appropriate and real, and start checking all image uploads.


 * No barnstars, yet.

If there are three or more orphan images it is an automatic failure, for wasting Wikipedia resources. I excuse orphan images if they are used but not listed as in images placed in user pages.


 * No images uploaded and so no orphan images.

If I cannot find a postcount, or a post that would allow me to sampling how they would act, I typically believe they are inexperienced, and should post more often, therefore automatically fail them.


 * I think my posts will pass this test.

If I find too many templates placed without enough of an explanation or difficulty tracing the conversation of the template it is an automatic failure.


 * Based on discussion with User:Masssiveego, it appears that this criterion is about placing vandalism warning templates without providing the user with a page reference so that he/she can understand which page is being discussed.


 * I have moved over to using the -n version of the "test" warning templates.

There are many other automatic failures such as no talk pages, no greetings pages, not enough images, not posting enough which etc.

I prefer to leave this in an email upon request to avoid embarrasing or otherwise reputation damaging information being left on talkpages. As I'm not about driving users away, but making sure only good Admin obtain tools that they need to help and correct. Rather then have self serving troublemakers drive away good users who have dontates so much of their knowledge, time and money to Wikipedia. Thus I do check for character as in how many post counts do they do, do they use bots? How are the bots?

If you pass the first part. The second part is I ask questions, the person has 24 hours and demonstrate that RC patrol skills, or vandal hunting skills a) they are online b) they monitor their watchlist or RFA c) are human by answering question, hypotetical situations, and tests such as a sample page. To show that they indeeed know what they are doing, and they understand policy.

If the two parts are past, the last part is I must see at least 5 other Wikipedians who have regular daily contact with the user in question. contact means a message at least once every 3 months, usually shows up on talk pages that can vouch for the character of the user. After that I typically support the canidate unless something comes up. --Masssiveego 06:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)