User:Amarkov/RfA standards

RfA standards

If you'd like numerical standards, please go to /numerical.

This section in a nutshell:

Don't do stupid or bad things, and I'll support you.

If I have reason to believe that you are only doing something because you wish to be an admin, and not because you actually enjoy it, I will oppose you, and I will consider nothing else. I have no interest in evaluating candidates who try to pretend they'll do things they won't. It is a waste of my time. Really, RfA is not a political campaign.

Oppose

The following things will cause me to oppose you, period. No questions at all.

Any block at all for threats. Those are entirely unacceptable. Even if you somehow weaseled out of the indefblock which should be given, you should never have admin powers.
Being under an Arbcom remedy of an article ban, article probation, or general probation. If the reasoning behind this isn't clear, that is a problem.
Being under any type of probation. That is a sign that the community does not trust you with the priveleges you have, so why would we trust you with more?
A justified block within the last month. Duh.
Less than some number of projectspace edits. You must show you are familiar with process, not just assert it. I would have an exact number, except experience tells me that invariably, when I think I have a reasonable number, I ignore it half the time.
Less than 3 months of experience. I have no idea why people think they'll suceed with 4 weeks of editing.
An acceptance statement and/or answers to questions which indicate you have no qualifications for adminship other than vandal fighting. You must understand that adminship is not simply a godmode version of Vandalproof, which some people don't seem to get.
Any answers which read like "I want to be an admin so I will have more influence". You won't.
Responding to every single oppose. It's okay to respond to a few, but to respond to every single one, even "per X", is bad.
Canvassing for your RfA. You do not recruit people to comment on an RfA. Ever.
It would look stupid if this list were exactly 10 things long.

Neutral

The following things will likely cause me to go neutral, although I may go with weak support or weak oppose. Possibly even a regular oppose or stronger, if you've done enough of them.

A justified block within the last four months. You really shouldn't get blocked.
Canvassing for an AfD. While slightly better than canvassing for an RfA, because AfD suffers less from headcountitis, it's still bad. Note that I do not consider notifying the overseeing Wikiproject or the article authors canvassing, but anything else, I will. Including canvassing everyone who has ever edited the article.

Support

If you don't have any of the above listed problems, I will probably support you. Do not construe this as a free support, because I know that the instant I save this, the next 10 RfAs I can't support will have problems I never thought to put here.

RfB standards

Be a good admin. There is absolutely no point in numerical standards here. Bonus points if you answer my optional question well:

number. What would you do if another bureaucrat disagreed with your decision to promote an admin candidate?

A:

I should note that I don't have a good answer to this.