16,295
edits
SmashWiki:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
m
→Rules and regulations
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) m (→Rules and regulations: Oh yeah this too, since there has been a few instances of non-autoconfirmed users trying to make RfAs on this page.) |
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* Selections of administrators are not a simple vote count, or majority opinion. Indeed, a bureaucrat may decide against the "popular vote" if they believe the opposition has provided more convincing arguments, or that the candidate has failed to satisfactorily respond to questions about their merits, and RfAs have been failed in the past that technically had a majority of the "votes" being supportive. | * Selections of administrators are not a simple vote count, or majority opinion. Indeed, a bureaucrat may decide against the "popular vote" if they believe the opposition has provided more convincing arguments, or that the candidate has failed to satisfactorily respond to questions about their merits, and RfAs have been failed in the past that technically had a majority of the "votes" being supportive. | ||
* When supporting or opposing a candidate, provide good and well-written reasons as to why you support or oppose the candidate. Comments that describe in detail why the candidate should/should not become a administrator carry far more weight than a simple support/oppose. Additionally, attaching intensifiers to your support/oppose will not make your "vote" carry any more weight. | * When supporting or opposing a candidate, provide good and well-written reasons as to why you support or oppose the candidate. Comments that describe in detail why the candidate should/should not become a administrator carry far more weight than a simple support/oppose. Additionally, attaching intensifiers to your support/oppose will not make your "vote" carry any more weight. | ||
* The candidate, or any other user, are allowed to respond to any other user's "vote", and are encouraged to, if a user has | * The candidate, or any other user, are allowed to respond to any other user's "vote", and are encouraged to, if a user has stated something factually incorrect in their reasoning or has otherwise said anything else refutable. Such replies should be written in the comments section, rather than directly replying to the user's "vote", so that the "voting" sections can be kept clean. Additionally, while the candidate and other users are encouraged to refute another user's reasoning when applicable, it should be within reason; a candidate or staunch supporter who tries shoddily refuting everyone that opposes will likely just worsen their case and bolster the opposition. | ||
* [[SW:RB|Rollback status]] is not required for a successful RfA, and a candidate having rollback will not make their case for adminship any stronger. Users who do not have rollback and only want sysop tools for quick reverts of vandalism will be directed towards the [[SW:RFR|appropriate request]]. | * [[SW:RB|Rollback status]] is not required for a successful RfA, and a candidate having rollback will not make their case for adminship any stronger. Users who do not have rollback and only want sysop tools for quick reverts of vandalism will be directed towards the [[SW:RFR|appropriate request]]. | ||
* [[SW:EST|Established status]] is also not required for a successful RFA, but users who haven't been around long enough or haven't contributed enough to be established will likely face strong opposition unless they have quickly proven themselves extraordinary. | * [[SW:EST|Established status]] is also not required for a successful RFA, but users who haven't been around long enough or haven't contributed enough to be established will likely face strong opposition unless they have quickly proven themselves extraordinary. | ||