User:Katalaveno/RFA Standards
 | Archived I no longer use this page because, for various reasons, I no longer participate in the RfA process. |
Katalaveno's RFA Standards
[edit]Qualitative
[edit]- Trustworthiness - Is there anything to indicate that the candidate will abuse the tools?
- Civil/mature/professional behaviour - Wikipedia has become one the most used web sites on the Earth. Adminship is a big deal now, in my opinion, because administrators are supposed to be aware of policy and they are supposed to be models of good editing behaviour. It is their job to enforce policy and be exemplary editors. As such, the Wikipedia community has a responsibility to support only those editors that embody these ideals.
- Commitment - Is there evidence that the candidate is committed to Wikipedia? This can take the form of long time editing, member and contributor of various projects, creator or major contributor to many articles or even FAs, and so on. For me, commitment also means the candidate wrote proper and thorough answers to the standard three questions posed in the RfA (despite their optionalness). Further, optional questions should at least be answered.
- Contribution balance - If the candidate does not mention that he/she intends to restrict him/herself to certain area(s) for admin duties, then I look for a fairly even balance of editing activity both across and within the main, article talk, user talk, and Wikipedia namespaces.
- Competence - Appropriate, fair and knowledgeable implementation of policy in the areas where the admin candidate wishes to perform administrator duties. Also, of course, the candidate makes the best possible effort to follow all Wikipedia policies in the spirit in which they were intended.
Quantitative
[edit]- Minimum 3000 total edits
- Minimum 250 Wikipedia namespace edits in the areas where the admin candidate wishes to perform administrator duties
- Minimum 300 edits/month
- Minimum 10 months editing Wikipedia
- Maximum 0 blocks in the last 10 months editing Wikipedia
- 99-100% edit summary use for last 150 major edits
- 95-100% edit summary use for last 150 minor edits
- Minimum 3 months since previous RfA (if one exists)
Other
[edit]The above criteria are basic guidelines I attempt to follow but nothing is ever as simple as following a rule book. There have been and probably still will be RfAs where I may not follow all of these criteria to the letter.