User:Snowolf/RfA voting method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snowolf (talk • botwiki • u:space • admin scout • npw • vp)
✘ This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the community discussion page.

Never used :P

While taking part at RfAs, I was always trying to find a "mathematical, logical" method to support or oppose a candidate. Finally I've decided to write it down.

If the candidate has reached X point in this test, then I may support him. Of course, this simple list of question it's only a help for my decision. Other things, such policy respect are more important. However, if the user hasn't run into major problems, I'll follow the results of the test.

[edit] Before even starting

Preliminary questions. If even only one of the following questions fails, that I probably won't support the candidate.
  1. Has the candidate more than 1000 contributions? (pass with yes - fails with no)
  2. Is the candidate here since more than 2 months? (pass with yes - fails with no)
  3. Is the candidate a vandal? (pass with no - fails with yes)
  4. Is the candidate a spammer? (pass with no - fails with yes)
  5. Has the candidate made more than 3 personal attacks in the last two months? (pass with no - fails with yes)
  6. Has the candidate made death threats or similar threats? (pass with no - fails with yes)
  7. Is the candidate Daniel Brandt? (pass with no - fails with yes)

[edit] Questions

  1. Has the candidate significantly contributed to at least one featured article? (25 pt)
    1. Has the candidate significantly contributed to two or more featured articles? (20 pt)
  2. Has the candidate taken part to the XfD process? (7 pt)
    1. Has he/she generally argued his opinions rather than simply vote for them? (10 pt)
  3. Has the candidate more than 3000 contributions? (10 pt)
    1. Has the candidate more than 5000 contributions? (5 pt)
  4. Has the candidate been ever blocked? (-10 pt)
    1. If so, for vandalism? (-20 pt)
      1. Has he/she managed to change his behavior? (19 pt)
    2. Has the block been revoked because the behavior of the candidate wasn't enough for a block? (10 pt)
    3. Has the candidate been blocked more than once? (-10 pt for every block - stopping at the fifth block include)
  5. Has the candidate joined en.wiki more than 3 months ago? (7 pt)
    1. Has the candidate joined en.wiki more than 6 months ago? (5 pt)
    2. Has the candidate joined en.wiki more than 2 years ago? (10 pt)
  6. Has the candidate ever written to a wikimedia mailing list? (3 pt)
  7. Is the mathbot's edit summary report of the candidate over 75%? (7 pt)
    1. Is it 100%? (7 pt)
  8. Has the candidate been already an administrator? (15 pt)
    1. Has he voluntary resigned from his position? (25 pt)
    2. Has he been desysopped? (-50 pt)
      1. By the Community? (-25 pt)
      2. More than once? (-40 pt)
      3. More than one year and half ago? (40 pt)
  9. Is the candidate member of the Bot Approval Group, Mediation committee, or another "official" wikipedia group? (20 pt)
  10. Is the candidate active member of the AMA? (10 pt)
  11. Is the candidate active member of the Mediation cabal? (10 pt)
  12. Does the candidate run a bot? (5 pt)
  13. Does the candidate take part in Bot Approval discussion for bots different from his/hers? (5 pt)
  14. Does the candidate ever nominated something for an XfD? (5 pt)
    1. Did it succeeded? (5 pt)
      1. More than 5 things? (10 pt)
  15. Has the candidate succesfully mediate a dispute? (15 pt)
    1. More than three? (5 pt)
  16. Has the candidate a signature shorten than mine (in the diff)? (1 pt)