User:Anonymous anonymous/RFA Criteria

RFA Criteria I can't think of a better name. Suggestions are welcome. Anonymous_ _Anonymous  16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To be finished...

Exceptions may apply

I will support RFA if...

 * ...the nominee answered the RFA questions well
 * ...the nominee is civil and friendly ( Wikipedia:Civility )
 * ...the nominee handled conflicts with another user in a friendly manner
 * ...the nominee has 4500 edits or more
 * ...the nominee participates in WikiProjects (Wikiproject Books, Concordia etc.)
 * ...the nominee has welcomed new users (and is friendly to them, WP:Bite)
 * ...the nominee has reverted pages from vandalism
 * ...the nominee was a former sysop and chose to reapply
 * ...the nominee has started at least one article
 * ...the nominee is trusted by the Wikipedia Community (has received barnstars from others, never vandalized, etc...)
 * ...the nominee uses Edit Summaries frequently or Always

More to be added

I will oppose RFA if...

 * ...the nominee has been blocked two or more times for breaking the Three Revert Rule
 * ...the nominee is an owner of abusive sockpuppets
 * ...the nominee is uncivil and unfriendly, Civility (especially to newer users: WP:Bite)
 * ...the nominee doesn't think that the "community side of wikipedia" is important
 * ...the nominee is unfamilliar with Wikipedia Policies
 * ...the nominee is a frequent "spammer"
 * ...the nominee is not really interested in becoming an admin
 * ...the nominee doesn't provide good answers to the RFA questions
 * ...the nominee doesn't appear to show great interest in gaining admin status per answers to questions

More to be added

Note to remember
''We are all human and we all make mistakes. Nobody is perfect''