User:America69/RfA criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have noticed that today, when you say your opionion in the RFA process, you are sometimes attacked for your stance. This page was made to tell you what my criteria is for the RFA process. I am going in order of what is the most important for me.

Actions (Conduct)[edit]

Here is what I will look for:

  • WP:Civility is very important to me when I look at your RFA. Bad behavior will result in a Oppose, while good behavior never hurts.
  • WP:CANVASSING: I STRONGELY OPPOSE going around canvassing for support votes. When I see this, it clearly means to me the user does not know policy.
  • Being blocked really does not matter to me unless you were blocked for:
  • Personal Attacks
  • Legal Threats
  • Vandalism
  • Copyrights violations
  • Sockpuppetry

(Note):At least 8 months to 1 year should pass since a block, unless it was a minor offense. I will mention all of these below.

  • WP:NPA: No personal attacks in the last 4-6 months. This worries me as to how you will respond as an admin in a situation.
  • Any Legal Threats at all, and I will oppose.
  • As has happened in a few RFA's, no Copyright violations in 5 months. This is important.
  • Sockpuppetry is a major offense. Usually will Oppose.
  • Remember, to always be civil to people in you RFA that oppose. If your RFA fails, than the next time, editors will remember your incivility.

Basic user infomation[edit]

Depending on how long the user has been here, and what kind of Wikipedia namespace work the user does is fairly important.

  • You should have at least 20 good contributions to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and edits WP:AFD discussions. On the RFA Question 1, you should name which of these you have made contributions too.
  • The editor should at least have been here for 1 year+. I would consider editors who have been here for at least 8 months or more. I do NOT think IP account's before you registered should be counted as previous experience. I frown on statements like that.
  • For 5 to 6 months before your RFA, you should have at LEAST have 150+ edits a month. I would also consider 100+ edits as well, but the more the better! Traditonal exceptions should be made to any editor who could not edit due to, illness, work, school, or vacation reasons. I will ask you why in your RFA you have had few edits in months leading up to your RFA.

Edits and Edit Count[edit]

Edit count is one thing I will look at. While I don't try to base my decsion on edit count, this is what I will be looking for:

  • 1000 to 1500+ mainsapce contributions
  • 300+ Wikipedia namespace edits
  • 2000 to 3000+ total edits
  • I generally oppose users who use lack of edit summaries, as to me that is a part to being a good admin. Edit summaries explain what changes you made, and that is important. I do on occasions oppose due to edit summaries!!
  • I have no issue if the editor uses Huggle, but I would have to look to see what kind of work he/she does with Huggle.


  • I do like to see editors add themselves to Administrators Open For Recall.
  • As in some RFA's one or two sentence answers to questions 1,2,or 3 are a big No-No. Any optional questions can be summed up in one or two sentences. I have no issue if you don't answer optional questions. It does look better if you do, however.
  • If you run a bot, I don't care. Bots are sometimes a good thing to have.
  • There has been an issue with self-nominations. I have no issue with self-nominations, however multiple self-noms that fail would make me wonder if you just want to be an admin to be an admin, or if you want to help the project. After multiple self-noms fail, it may be best to wait till you are nominated by another user.
  • If you look at my userpage, you will notice I have many political userboxes. I have no issue with what you have on YOUR userpage as long as it is within reason.
  • I do care if you do not know the difference between a block and a ban, as this is a major part of being an admin.

My summing up[edit]

  • You will notice, from time to time, that I will suggest WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. This does not mean that I don't like you, but that your RFA will not pass, or that the consenus before the RFA closes is that your not ready. Please not that I DONNOT suggest this to be rude, or hurtful, but really to protect you. If it is a bloodbath, like 5 supporters and 30 opposers, it is obvious this RFA will not pass. Letting it continue will just continue to bloodbath, and leave some bad blood between users.
  • To me, any RFA below 75% should not pass, but that is up to the crat' to decide. Any RFA above 76% should pass.
  • I will not oppose due to someone's age, but to there maturity. There are some 13 yr. olds who are very mature, and would not abuse the tools, and other 13 yr. olds who may. It all depends on maturity.
  • As in one case in the RFA process, the nominator may affect the process. If a editor who nominates you who has had issues in the past, I may oppose due to what the nature of the RFA is.
  • I will update this as other issues may come to life in the future.