User:Joturner/Page Border
User:Joturner/Main Links
 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In response to long-standing standards held by other editors for those requesting adminship as well as the more recent, more specific standards (namely Mailer diablo's, Digital me's, and Tawker's), I, Jordan Turner, am proclaiming that I may apply different standards on different days. No standard below is absolute and therefore, depending on one's preferred definition, may not even be considered a standard at all.
Different Standards
- (a) I will usually support candidates that have a history of vandal fighting, but I only rarely support candidates that cite that as their only great admin-like activities.
- (b) I will usually support candidates that have a history of reasoned comments on article for deletion discussions.
- (c) I will often support editors without a blocking history and with overall civility, calmness, and positive interaction.
- (d) I will often support editors with greater than 5,000 edits, but don't accuse me of editcountitis.
- (e) I will sometimes support candidates that have worked on featured articles, since, as no one owns any given article it does not make sense to credit particular editors with featured articles.
- (f) I will seldom support a candidate that has fewer than 1000 edits.
- (g) I will almost never oppose a request for adminship due to the length of signature, but I will often comment on it.
- (h) I will almost always take into account other editors' comments when deciding whether to support or oppose.
- (i) I will almost never take into account one's vote for or against me on an RfA (or otherwise), unless the vote is grossly misguided.
- (j) I will almost never take into account a candidate's ability to speak foreign languages.
- (k) I will rarely take into account the number of barnstars a candidate gives me, unless those barnstars are accompanied by an overall sense of civility, kindness, and welcome.
- (l) I will rarely take into account the (biological) age or academic background of the candidate.
- (m) I will seldom oppose a candidate due to content on one's userpage.
- (n) I will seldom oppose a candidate based on his or her voting patterns on requests for adminship.
- (o) I will sometimes oppose self-nominations for malformed RfAs.
- (p) I will sometimes oppose candidates that demonstrate lack of "scope": (i) they have a low percentage of talk page edits, (ii) they have a low percentage of project page edits, or (iii) they edit in a narrow scope of article subjects.
- (q) I will sometimes oppose candidates for improper English or a low percentage of edit summaries; proper communication is important.
- (r) I will sometimes oppose a candidate if he or she has been the subject of a request for comment, depending on the outcome.
- (s) I will often oppose candidates that clearly campaign for their request for adminship, but I will almost never make extraordinary assumptions about motives.
- (t) I will often oppose a candidate that has a frivolous nomination in his or her past.
- (u) I will usually oppose candidates that have been blocked due to incivility.
- (v) I will usually oppose candidates that appear inactive over the several months prior to nomination.
- (w) I will usually oppose candidates that appear to not take criticism well in their requests for adminship (and otherwise).
- (x) I will almost always oppose a candidate that has ever been involuntarily desysopped.
- (y) I will almost always oppose a candidate that has been voluntarily desysopped in the past nine months to avoid being involuntarily desysopped.
- (z) I will almost always oppose a candidate that has made prejudiced or hateful comments against me or anyone else.
Different Days
Sometimes I will forgive mistakes years, months, weeks, or perhaps days have past since the offense. Sometimes I'll ignore an offense with one candidate, but use a similar offense as a reason to oppose with another. Sometimes I'll intentionally wait until the end of a requests' period so I can see what others think, but sometimes I'll jump in and have my say at the beginning. I strive to be consistent in my voting patterns and rationales, but like I said, I may apply different standards on different days.
User:Joturner/Page Border
User:Joturner/Main Links
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In response to long-standing standards held by other editors for those requesting adminship as well as the more recent, more specific standards (namely Mailer diablo's, Digital me's, and Tawker's), I, Jordan Turner, am proclaiming that I may apply different standards on different days. No standard below is absolute and therefore, depending on one's preferred definition, may not even be considered a standard at all.
Different Standards
- (a) I will usually support candidates that have a history of vandal fighting, but I only rarely support candidates that cite that as their only great admin-like activities.
- (b) I will usually support candidates that have a history of reasoned comments on article for deletion discussions.
- (c) I will often support editors without a blocking history and with overall civility, calmness, and positive interaction.
- (d) I will often support editors with greater than 5,000 edits, but don't accuse me of editcountitis.
- (e) I will sometimes support candidates that have worked on featured articles, since, as no one owns any given article it does not make sense to credit particular editors with featured articles.
- (f) I will seldom support a candidate that has fewer than 1000 edits.
- (g) I will almost never oppose a request for adminship due to the length of signature, but I will often comment on it.
- (h) I will almost always take into account other editors' comments when deciding whether to support or oppose.
- (i) I will almost never take into account one's vote for or against me on an RfA (or otherwise), unless the vote is grossly misguided.
- (j) I will almost never take into account a candidate's ability to speak foreign languages.
- (k) I will rarely take into account the number of barnstars a candidate gives me, unless those barnstars are accompanied by an overall sense of civility, kindness, and welcome.
- (l) I will rarely take into account the (biological) age or academic background of the candidate.
- (m) I will seldom oppose a candidate due to content on one's userpage.
- (n) I will seldom oppose a candidate based on his or her voting patterns on requests for adminship.
- (o) I will sometimes oppose self-nominations for malformed RfAs.
- (p) I will sometimes oppose candidates that demonstrate lack of "scope": (i) they have a low percentage of talk page edits, (ii) they have a low percentage of project page edits, or (iii) they edit in a narrow scope of article subjects.
- (q) I will sometimes oppose candidates for improper English or a low percentage of edit summaries; proper communication is important.
- (r) I will sometimes oppose a candidate if he or she has been the subject of a request for comment, depending on the outcome.
- (s) I will often oppose candidates that clearly campaign for their request for adminship, but I will almost never make extraordinary assumptions about motives.
- (t) I will often oppose a candidate that has a frivolous nomination in his or her past.
- (u) I will usually oppose candidates that have been blocked due to incivility.
- (v) I will usually oppose candidates that appear inactive over the several months prior to nomination.
- (w) I will usually oppose candidates that appear to not take criticism well in their requests for adminship (and otherwise).
- (x) I will almost always oppose a candidate that has ever been involuntarily desysopped.
- (y) I will almost always oppose a candidate that has been voluntarily desysopped in the past nine months to avoid being involuntarily desysopped.
- (z) I will almost always oppose a candidate that has made prejudiced or hateful comments against me or anyone else.
Different Days
Sometimes I will forgive mistakes years, months, weeks, or perhaps days have past since the offense. Sometimes I'll ignore an offense with one candidate, but use a similar offense as a reason to oppose with another. Sometimes I'll intentionally wait until the end of a requests' period so I can see what others think, but sometimes I'll jump in and have my say at the beginning. I strive to be consistent in my voting patterns and rationales, but like I said, I may apply different standards on different days.