"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:
 
*'''Vandalismනාශකවාදය''': A persistent and unreformed vandal will never be made an administrator; one of the primary tasks of administrators is fighting vandalism (and a truly bad administrator could cause serious damage to the site). Even a relatively minor disruption, like making a joking edit to an article, can cause problems.
*'''Incivilityඅශීලාචාරකම''': If a nominee has responded to unpleasant or irritating users by leaving insulting messages which violate the spirit of [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]].
*'''Intransigenceනොනැමෙන ගතිය''': If a nominee has ever refused to be involved in good faith efforts to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on talk pages, and instead engaged in edit wars.
*'''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.
*'''Editසංස්කරණ warsයුද්ධය''': If a candidate is prone to repeating a single edit after it becomes obvious that there is a disagreement with it. To most RfA contributors, it does not matter who is ''right'', it matters how a candidate handles themselves during a debate.
*'''"Advertisingදැන්වීම් ප්‍රචාරය" your RfA''': Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on [[Internet Relay Chat|IRC]]. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Impartial evaluation of a candidate is the goal, rather than measuring their popularity. [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|Canvassing]] is generally looked down upon. Consider using {{tl|RFA-notice}} on your userpage, which is a more neutral way to communicate your RfA to other users.
*'''Blocksවාරණය''': If you've been blocked !voters will want to know why and what you've learned from this, especially if you've been blocked in recent months.
*'''Elaborateසංකීර්ණ [[WP:SIG|signaturesඅත්සන]]''': Some have a low opinion of editors who create fancy signatures, especially ones with special characters and images.
*'''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:
 
*'''Timeකාලය'''. If a nominee has demonstrated high standards of conduct for a few months, the RfA contributors may discount earlier undesirable behaviour.
*'''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.
"https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/විකිපීඩියා:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship" වෙතින් සම්ප්‍රවේශනය කෙරිණි