User:Kj cheetham/RfA criteria

Things to consider at WP:RFA.

Useful links

• WP:GRFA
• WP:RFAV
• WP:GARFAP
• WP:RFAADVICE
• WP:AAAD
• WP:ADMINLIST
• WP:RFAINFLATE
• User:Enterprisey/Tenures at RfA

My own criteria

These far from 100% strict rules, and I will take into account other factors before !voting. These are no particular order.

• Maturity (some limited swearing outside of mainspace is ok)
• Being WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, especially when dealing with conflicts
• Helping people, explaining reasoning beyond pointing to guidelines
• Experience - breadth and length of time, not simple edit counts (though would expect an absolute minimum of 5-10k total and activity over the past year, plus having had an account more than 2 years)
• Use of edit summaries (ideally at least 98%)
• Evidence/willingness of learning from past mistakes
• Understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NEUTRAL editing
• Awareness of policies and guidelines and the difference between them
• Content creation (not just gnoming) - more than stubs, but not essential to get good/FA status (autopatrolled-level at least, if not the actual perm)
• Not nominating/WP:PRODding for deletion without WP:BEFORE
• Awareness of notability and what warrants speed deletion, etc. (CSD log shouldn't be filled with blue links)
• Closing discussions reasonably (being aware of WP:BADNAC, not being a WP:SUPERVOTE, etc.)
• Giving actual reasons at AfD (e.g. not just "per nom")
• Some idea what they'll use admin tools for, at least initially (not just to WP:HATCOLLECT)
• Reasonable answer to the question of being open to recall

Undesired activies

• Being called to account at WP:ANI, etc. (except in bad faith)
• WP:GRAVEDANCING
• WP:HARASSing or WP:PERSONALATTACKS
• WP:EDITWARring
• Recent WP:BLOCKS (except for accidents by admins)
• WP:VANDALISM, WP:COPYVIO issues, or receiving L3/L4 warnings
• Signs of sexism, racism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.
• Believing themselves to be perfect, or signs of elitism/inflated ego, or claims of WP:OWNership

If any historical issues, would expect evidence that they have learned from the past. Would expect a cleaner record in the past year though.

Additional potential nice-to-haves

• Significant involvement in moving articles to WP:GOOD/WP:FA status
• Active involvement in some of WP:DYK, WP:RM, WP:XfD, WP:NPP, WP:AfC, WP:RPC
• Requests made to one or more of WP:UAA, WP:PP, WP:SPI
• Anti-vandalism work
• Responding at WP:TH and/or WP:VP
• Barnstars from other editors
• Knowing which areas they shouldn't get involved in (due to WP:COI, etc.)
• Involvement in Wikiprojects
• No mass WP:STUB-creation
• No overly political usernames
• Having gained some additional permissions already that are made use of

Examples of other people's criteria

See Category:User criteria for adminship, as I don't want to single out particular ones.