"විකිපීඩියා:Guide to requests for adminship" හි සංශෝධන අතර වෙනස්කම්
Content deleted Content added
88 පේළිය:
No matter how experienced you are, some actions will cause problems. In roughly decreasing order of seriousness, here are some things which, if seen in your edit history, will be raised and thoroughly discussed:
*'''
*'''
*'''
*'''Controversial activity on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | AfD]]''': Voting according to criteria not relevant to the purpose of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | AfD]], persistently starting AfDs on articles on the kinds of subjects generally (let alone explicitly) recognized as worth an article.
*'''Incorrectly nominating articles for speedy deletion''': Nominating articles for speedy deletion when they don't meet the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] can disturb many contributors to the RfA, due to fear that the nominee will wrongly delete articles without review.
*'''[[WP:POINT|Abuse of process]]''': If a nominee has ever started an inappropriate [[Wikipedia:Requests for Comment|RfC]], or made seemingly frivolous complaints via official channels.
*'''
*'''"
*'''
*'''
*'''Long gaps in editing''': Unless you have a good reason that you state on your page, a steady edit history in recent months is preferred.
*'''Use of [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] accounts''' to avoid scrutiny, or to mislead the community about your past editing history.
104 පේළිය:
However, many RfAs have succeeded despite some of the above. The important factors are:
*'''
*'''Disclosure'''. If a nominee brings up past missteps him or herself, and either apologizes or explains how such missteps will be avoided in the future, the candidacy will be more likely to succeed.
*'''Approach to opposing votes'''. Responding in a calm, rational, and (if needed) apologetic manner will be to a candidate's credit. A candidate who shows anger or frustration or makes insults when presented with opposition is likely to engender more opposition.
|