User:ST11/RfA

Some thoughts on on the RfA process


 * Content work is an absolute must. Remember, the primary purpose of WP is to produce high-quality content; everything else comes second. Without content work, candidates do not know what content editors need to produce such content, and thus substantial content work (e.g. bringing an article to GA) is necessary for me to support any RfA candidate.
 * I'm not a fan of count-related criteria, such as number of AfDs participated in or edit count. Not all edits are created equal; for example, one edit adding a piece of reliably-sourced information into an article may well have the same amount or greater value as 100 typo-fix edits. One can easily up the AfD count by voting in ones that clearly are going to have some result, and similar effects happen with other count-based measures.
 * For similar reasons, I'm not a fan of percentage-based criteria. For example, in AfD, one could easily have a perfect percentage by only voting on obvious cases, while those who only vote on borderline cases would obviously have lower percentages. I would much rather support a candidate in the second scenario, however, since such a candidate has shown that they will not always side with a majority, and will instead think for themself.
 * I don't care about past mistakes, as long as the candidate has demonstrated that they have learned from them, and will not repeat them. That being said, I'll only take this to a point, and for some particularly egregious mistakes, such as intentionally outing another editor or telling somebody else to kill themselves, it may take years for me to fully trust the candidate again and support them in an RfA.