User:Peter/RfA criteria

You might be reading this because I've voted on your RfA. If so thanks for being interested in my comments. Please note that if I am not supporting your RfA this does not necessarily mean I think you're a bad editor, just that you are not suitable to be an admin yet or I cannot tell if you would be a suitable admin (e.g. you might make a fantastic admin, just not have enough history for me to make an informed judgement).

Here are some of the things I think about when casting my opinion, and why I might oppose or support a RfA. I might support or oppose for another reason, specified at the specific RfA, or just from a general impression based on experience interacting with a user. These criteria will almost certainly change, develop, and/or be added to over time, and are therefore not set in stone rules that I will always stick to. I welcome any comments on these, please leave them on the talk page. I'm also happy to go into further detail as to why I came to a specific decision on a RfA, if you have any questions please ask on my main talk page. Thanks.

Note about 'vote': I realise RFA is not an election, I use the term vote for convenience to refer to when I cast an opinion on RFA that is in the form of support or oppose.

When I will !vote

I generally avoid casting my vote when it will have little impact on the outcome. A large number of candidates have either very high or very low level of support. As RFA is not a popularity contest (shouldn't be!) but rather a method of gaining consensus about if someone is suitable to be an admin, there is no need to add too many 'me too' opinions. However, I may bend this self-rule in cases when I've personally interacted with a user and support if I think they are particularly suitable, or if I can add new information to the discussion.

If I have not encountered an editor before, there are edit histories, talk pages, answers to questions, nomination statement, etc. to allow an informed decision to be made, and therefore I do not limit myself only to RFAs where I personally know the candidate.

Major criteria

If you do not meet these criteria I will automatically oppose.

Civility

We do not need admins who are abusive and make personal attacks. A one off major personal attack (that doesn't result in a full apology soon after) or a pattern of incivility will result in an oppose.

Mistakes/Errors in judgment

I will not oppose someone's RfA because they have made a mistake(s). I will oppose it if they have made a mistake and fail to correct it or fail to fairly respond to criticism. Everyone can make mistakes sometimes, I just don't want to see an admin who refuses to admit that. A willingness to learn at all times is very important for me.

Edit warring, conflict with editors

Judged on a case by case basis, depends on how long ago the incident(s) were, if it's a trend of incidents or a one-off, how the candidate learnt from it, etc.

Your talk page

This can say a lot about you. Do you have lots of people thanking you? How do you handle people who have a problem with anything you have done? I see this as a very important factor to take into account. Because of this I will oppose your RfA if you do not keep talk page archives, but simply delete comments off your talk page (except in the most obvious cases of vandalism/trolling).

Email

Must be enabled. I may email you during your RFA to check you actually read them!

Guides

Experience

To be an admin the candidate should have enough experience on Wikipedia to know the basics of how things work, to have encountered a variety of difference situations and users, and to have build up enough history to allow others to judge if they would be a good admin. This would probably mean around 1000 edits if they have done many 'major' edits (such as large and/or difficult contributions) or around 2000 edits if they have mostly done 'minor' edits (quicker contributions such as reverting blatant vandalism), though I would want to see some non-minor edits as well. Around 3 active months I think is also a reasonable minimum. These figures are just guides, not 'must haves'.

Responses to questions

I might oppose if they are too short/show lack of enthusiasm for admin related tasks, or if they uncover a fundamental misunderstanding of policies. They will help me support if they help complete a good impression of the potential admin, show understanding of policies, or otherwise help persuade me that a great admin is on the way :)

Your user page

Not a criterion. I generally don't have too much problem with POV on userpages.

Other bits and pieces

I'm unlikely to change my decision based on on these alone, but several together might.

Edit summaries

As a vandal fighter I believe in edit summaries, including for minor edits. This applies just as much for all pages, not just articles. Edit summaries also make page histories far more useful, and help with contributions reviews.

Signature

An attention grabbing signature is a 'no' for me, especially if it takes up multiple lines in edit screens and/or contains an image.