User:Kj cheetham/RfA criteria

Things to consider at WP:RFA.

Useful links

 * WP:GRFA
 * WP:RFAV
 * WP:GARFAP
 * WP:RFAADVICE
 * WP:AAAD
 * WP:ADMINLIST
 * WP:RFAINFLATE
 * User:Enterprisey/Tenures at RfA

My own criteria
These far from 100% strict rules, and I will take into account other factors before !voting. These are no particular order.


 * Maturity (some limited swearing outside of mainspace is ok)
 * Being WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, especially when dealing with conflicts
 * Helping people, explaining reasoning beyond pointing to guidelines
 * Experience - breadth and length of time, not simple edit counts (though would expect an absolute minimum of 5-10k total and activity over the past year, plus having had an account more than 2 years)
 * Use of edit summaries (ideally at least 98%)
 * Evidence/willingness of learning from past mistakes
 * Understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NEUTRAL editing
 * Awareness of policies and guidelines and the difference between them
 * Content creation (not just gnoming) - more than stubs, but not essential to get good/FA status (autopatrolled-level at least, if not the actual perm)
 * Not nominating/WP:PRODding for deletion without WP:BEFORE
 * Awareness of notability and what warrants speed deletion, etc. (CSD log shouldn't be filled with blue links)
 * Closing discussions reasonably (being aware of WP:BADNAC, not being a WP:SUPERVOTE, etc.)
 * Giving actual reasons at AfD (e.g. not just "per nom")
 * Some idea what they'll use admin tools for, at least initially (not just to WP:HATCOLLECT)
 * Reasonable answer to the question of being open to recall

Undesired activies

 * Being called to account at WP:ANI, etc. (except in bad faith)
 * WP:GRAVEDANCING
 * WP:HARASSing or WP:PERSONALATTACKS
 * WP:EDITWARring
 * Recent WP:BLOCKS (except for accidents by admins)
 * WP:VANDALISM, WP:COPYVIO issues, or receiving L3/L4 warnings
 * Signs of sexism, racism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.
 * Believing themselves to be perfect, or signs of elitism/inflated ego, or claims of WP:OWNership

If any historical issues, would expect evidence that they have learned from the past. Would expect a cleaner record in the past year though.

Additional potential nice-to-haves

 * Significant involvement in moving articles to WP:GOOD/WP:FA status
 * Active involvement in some of WP:DYK, WP:RM, WP:XfD, WP:NPP, WP:AfC, WP:RPC
 * Requests made to one or more of WP:UAA, WP:PP, WP:SPI
 * Anti-vandalism work
 * Responding at WP:TH and/or WP:VP
 * Barnstars from other editors
 * Knowing which areas they shouldn't get involved in (due to WP:COI, etc.)
 * Involvement in Wikiprojects
 * No mass WP:STUB-creation
 * No overly political usernames
 * Having gained some additional permissions already that are made use of

Examples of other people's criteria
See Category:User criteria for adminship, as I don't want to single out particular ones.