User:Fl/RfA criteria

My view on adminship is that similar to a court of law in Australia (and many other democratic countries), you are innocent until proven guilty; you are supported unless you prove that you're going to cause disruption or you being an admin will not have a net benefit to the project.

There are of course some exceptions to this:


 * I'm not going to immediately support you if your RfA could be closed as meeting NOTNOW criteria (that being said, artificially inflated edit counts will suffer extra scrutiny to see if the amount of non-automatic edits passes NOTNOW).


 * If you have blocks as recent as 3 months ago on your log.


 * I will also be more scrutinizing if you say you will work your admin magic (A1) in areas which you have had problems with in the past.


 * I view article work (particularly GAs, FAs etc) as a extra reason to support you (it shows that you can write, a useful skill) but lack of these things will not lower my likelihood of support.


 * I don't take into account the reason a person wants adminship (unless it is going to affect your abilities to be a good admin) as I believe that even if you want the tools as a trophy, if you still do one good thing with them, your time at Wikipedia has been worth it.


 * If you fall somewhere in the grey area of my criteria I will examine the support/oppose comments, your contributions, your userpage etc to determine what I will do.


 * Also, I view having near 100% edit summary usage as important. I will let someone get away with around 90% major and 70% minor, but will quiz them on the importance of an edit summary. Anything below this and I will need a promise to use an edit summary in every edit during the RfA and that you will tick the "prompt me if edit summary is blank" box. If you say that an edit summary is not important in controversial situations, or will not go to near 95% edit summary as an admin, I will lean towards opposing you.