User:Kj cheetham/RfA criteria
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
Things to consider at WP:RFA.
Useful links
[edit]- WP:GRFA
- WP:RFAV
- WP:GARFAP
- WP:RFAADVICE
- WP:AAAD
- WP:ADMINLIST
- WP:RFAINFLATE
- User:Enterprisey/Tenures at RfA
My own criteria
[edit]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
[edit]- 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
[edit]- 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
[edit]See Category:User criteria for adminship, as I don't want to single out particular ones.