User:BryanG/RfA criteria

Some general thoughts on what I look for in RfA candidates, here because I believe in transparency of standards and because I get lazy in my "support" comments sometimes ;).

Questions, comments, and complaints are welcome at my talk page.

Caveats

 * This criteria is subject to change. In fact, it has changed once already. So don't be surprised if it looks different later.
 * I get to ignore what this page says whenever I want, of course, as each RfA is different.
 * I basically stole the current format (but not the criteria!) from Grandmasterka's RfA criteria page, because I liked it better than my old one. Not really a caveat, but I'm throwing that in there anyway.

Factors

 * 1) At least 1000 and preferably 2000 total edits.
 * 2) At least 200 Wikipedia: namespace edits. Note that this does not include edits to the Sandbox, the Esperanza coffee lounge, or similar pages; while these pages have their place, they're not what I'm looking for here.
 * 3) At least 3 months of fairly heavy recent editing.
 * 4) Good answers to questions. I want to see why you want the tools, and preferably experience in those areas that non-admins can help out in.
 * 5) High edit summary usage. What's high? It's not really defined, but I have yet to see anyone fall in the "grey area" that I haven't found other reasons to determine my "vote".

Rationale

 * 1) Well, it's a quick and dirty, although certainly not perfect, way to judge experience.
 * 2) The Wikipedia: namespace is where policy discussions are, where deletion debates are, and basically all sorts of other places admins will be involved. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but admins do a lot of the behind-the-scenes work that keeps this place running, and so just being a good writer isn't necessarily enough.
 * 3) You can't get enough experience to be an admin in less than 3 months, period. And a lot can change around here in 3 months, so I want to see you've been around here recently. Besides, recent edits are the ones I like to check.
 * 4) If you can't be bothered to write good answers to questions on your own RfA, this gives me serious concerns about what you'd be like as an admin. I can't tell if you have the right kind of experience if I don't know what you want adminship for. And if you want to, say, close deletion debates, I want to see you have some idea of how things work there.
 * 5) You really should explain what you're doing to an article. It doesn't take long, either.

Possible mitigating factors

 * 1) You have contributed significantly to articles, such that you haven't had time to rack up thousands of edits. Featured articles really help here.
 * 2) I'll consider <200 if you've been here a long time, contributed significantly to a featured article, or everything you want to do with the tools doesn't really require Wikipedia: namespace experience (i.e. vandal fighting).
 * 3) I may consider waiving the recent part if you've been here a while or have a good reason for your inactivity.
 * 4) I might ignore poor answers if you look good everywhere else. I probably will be neutral if you don't say what you want the tools for. I'll consider waiving lack of experience on a case-by-case basis, this is never an "automatic" oppose.
 * 5) If you've clearly made a good-faith attempt to improve recently or there's some reason your numbers are off, I'll probably ignore it.

Factors

 * 1) Obvious failure in any support criteria.
 * 2) General incivility, POV-pushing, etc.
 * 3) Blocks within the last couple of months.
 * 4) A previous involuntary desysoping by the ArbCom.
 * 5) No email activated.
 * 6) A very recent unsuccessful RfA (less than a month or two ago).

Rationale

 * 1) Hopefully this is obvious.
 * 2) Incivility should not be tolerated, and having the tools makes POV-pushing a lot easier.
 * 3) Basically evidence of meeting some other oppose factor.
 * 4) This wouldn't have happened if you had used your admin tools better before, and is probably a sign of meeting oppose factor 2.
 * 5) Admins should be easy to contact outside Wikipedia.
 * 6) Likely nothing has changed within the last month.

Possible mitigating factors

 * 1) See the ones under reasons I support.
 * 2) Probably none.
 * 3) I feel the block was unjustified, or it was for 3RR. Lots of 3RR blocks are a bad sign, however.
 * 4) I feel the desysoping was unjustified or I feel you've learned your lesson and won't do it again.
 * 5) Activate your email.
 * 6) I supported you last time, you've fixed whatever I opposed on last time, or I didn't comment last time and would support otherwise.