User:65HCA7/RfA standards

I usually vote in almost every one of the few RfA's that come through here, and while I'm a bit more lenient than most in terms of things like edit count, AfD participation, content creation, etc., I still need to see certain things before I am willing to support your run for adminship. Back in the olden days of Wikipedia, as many others have observed, the system worked more on trust; people could pass with just several months' experience and an edit count in the upper triple figures, but now most people have very high requirements before they even think of filing a "support" vote, to the tune of several years' experience and five- or even six-figure edit counts. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2014 and have amassed roughly 3700 edits as of this writing in December 2017 (now roughly 4600 edits as of June 2018), and I consider myself a moderately experienced editor, though I do not know all of the many rules and policies inside and out, and neither do most others. Here are my requirements, broken down into stuff I like, stuff that might help me decide, and outright deal-breakers.

Absolute requirements

 * Not currently blocked - nuff said.
 * 24 months (ideally more) active - if you are newer than I am or have fewer edits than I do, I am going to wonder what makes you so great that I should support you. I don't have many hard, fast, be-all-end-all Rules, but this is one of them: if you joined less than two years ago, or your period of being active (at least 100 edits per month) stretches back less than 12-18 months, I will automatically oppose.
 * Non-automated editing - just clicking 62 buttons on Twinkle or Huggle per minute is pure automation, and if the vast majority or entirety of your edits are merely automated reversions of things that could be vandalism, I have no yardstick by which to measure your actual experience and understanding of how Wikipedia works. For me to support, I need to see at least 1,000 non-automated article space edits and at least 25% non-automated edits across the board.  Granted, I personally do use Twinkle to facilitate things such as UAA, AIV, and RFPP, but this is merely because vandal fighting can be time sensitive and I want those vandals gone as quickly as possible.
 * Some standard of civility - I don't require you never to make a mistake or have a bad day; we're only human, and those are inevitable. In fact, once I got in an argument with another editor (one whose civility record isn't stellar either, no less), and in the midst of futile arguing, after what seemed to be a personal remark I snapped and called the other editor nonconstructive.  It's something I'm not proud of and try not to do again, but it goes to show that everyone has a bad day sometimes.  All I mean by this is that if your communication style consists primarily of expletives and personal attacks, or is utterly nonexistent, I'm going to oppose.  It's possible (and not too difficult) to argue the content instead of the contributor.
 * 4,000 edits, with appropriate namespace balance - fewer than 4,000 edits, and I'm not getting a full picture of who you are and don't sense you have enough experience and understanding to handle the admin position. In addition, if 80% of your edits are within your own userspace or experiments in the sandbox, I'm not going to sense entirely being here to contribute to the encyclopedia either.
 * Good answers to questions - the three standard boilerplate questions at every RfA and subsequent questions posed by the community should have reasonable and well thought-out answers. These are how I know a user's true positions on various matters and are probably one of the strongest ways to measure things such as temperament and compatibility with the goals of Wikipedia.  If you don't know how to answer a question posed by a community member, feel free not to; no answer is better than a blatantly false answer, one that answers around the question, or one that merely summarizes what the community "wants to hear" as opposed to the truth.

Things I like to see

 * Content creation - while I have no firm requirement as to number or quality of articles created, creation or expansion of articles, especially very good or even featured ones, is always a plus. It itself won't make or break my vote, but it can be a huge advantage to have some content creation under your belt.
 * AfD participation - while I have no requirement that you MUST participate in AfD, becoming familiar with deletion discussions is of course a plus. Note also that it's not the number of AfD votes that matters; it's the quality.  Bogus "keep" votes to protect your own articles or being a deliberate contrarian without adequate support or explanation are not recommended.

Deal-breakers

 * Too many, severe, or recent blocks - having a squeaky clean block log isn't necessary, and besides, much of the time stuff like civility is completely subjective anyway. However, if you have blocks within the past year, or if you have been blocked multiple times for the same thing, or if you have multiple very long or indefinite blocks that were not overturned, I do not see that you are willing to follow the rules or that you can handle the admin position.
 * Sock puppetry - I'm completely fine with legitimate use of alternate accounts, as laid out in the rules regarding such, but if you have used sock puppets to vandalize/troll, stack votes or discussions, or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, that also vastly diminishes my amount of trust and confidence that you are an honest and trustworthy person.
 * All edits automated or in one namespace - if all of your edits are just clicking buttons on Twinkle or Huggle, as stated above, I have no metric by which to judge your actual experience level. Having all of your edits in one namespace can also be problematic: if you have no edits outside of your own userspace, I'll bet $10 you're using Wikipedia as your own web host instead of being here to contribute.  If you have no edits in talk or project spaces, that shows little or no experience behind the scenes or discussing with other editors, which is a very important part of how Wikipedia works.  Failure to communicate helps exactly nobody.
 * No command of English - the English Wikipedia runs in the English language, so users with such a poor command of the language that they cannot understand or be understood by other members would not be good suits for advanced user rights.
 * Lack of judgment - as stated above, I do not expect users to be absolutely perfect. However, if your decisions are all rash and in the moment, without any forethought or consideration, you cannot be trusted to edit in this capacity.  In addition, patterns of editing with a conflict of interest in the discussion at hand show nothing more than an intent to push one's own point of view, a "my way or the highway" attitude, and a lack of willingness to accept opposition.
 * Responding to/attacking every oppose - it's good to figure out specific flaws and negative traits so you can improve on them and not have them be an issue in the future. However, it is not necessary to respond to every oppose vote with an apology, long-winded comment, or worse still, a personal attack.  I expect candidates to have some self-awareness and some restraint, and battleground behavior even during an RfA shows just the opposite.
 * Long history at ANI or other drama boards - some participation on the so-called drama boards is fine; often there will be problematic incidents, and people are often legitimately wronged by other editors. However, using those boards to create drama is not cool, and neither is having a long history of winding up on the "reported" side of things and receiving or narrowly avoiding blocks and sanctions.  If you're building up a long list of enemies, there's probably a reason.
 * Too many or too recent failed RfA's - if you have been up at RfA more than 2-3 previous times, or your last RfA was very recent (within 6-12 months), that does not give me a good feeling. Too many previous RfA's gives me the feeling you are desperate for the tools, and often periods of several months or less are far from enough time to address fully any concerns brought up at prior failed RfA's.

I also believe User:SMcCandlish has a very detailed, comprehensive, and high-quality list of standards; they're pretty similar to my own, but much more detailed.

Good luck! 65 HC  A7  14:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)