User:Useight/RFA Standards

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

These are my standard requirements for supporting a request for adminship. They are not set in stone and are subject to change at any time. I may or may not follow these standards when commenting on an RFA.


Important factors[edit]

  • Civility
  • Note: Incorrect blocks, like these don't count and I'm more lenient on being blocked for 3RR than for other reasons.
  • Does not challenge the editors who oppose the candidate's RFA
  • Note, I don't mind a couple times in which the candidate brings up a valid point, but sometimes, commenting on too many of the opposers seems like badgering.
  • Experience
  • The editor has gained my trust that they will use the block and delete buttons properly
  • Note: This is extremely subjective. If I am not familiar with the candidate (which happens most of the time), I will dig extra deep through his/her contribs.
  • Actively and consistently editing for the last few months
  • Lots of quality activity in areas mentioned in Q1; 500 edits in the Wikipedia namespace is optimal, but not required
  • For example: If the candidate wishes to close AFDs, I want to see that they comment in AFDs often and avoid using "Per nom" quality comments.
  • Is not overly reliant on automated tools
  • Note: I don't mind the candidate using tools, but I don't want to see these automated edits making up a overwhelming majority of their edits. This is especially true in the edits immediately prior to the RFA.
  • Near-perfect usage of edit summaries
  • Is there some "magic" minimum number of edits? No. But I would like to see at least 2000. I've placed this at the bottom of my "Important factors" because there is no special threshold that moves the candidate from oppose to support in my book. Quality is much more important than quantity, hence my other "Important factors."

Non-factors[edit]

  • Created articles of GA or FA status
  • Note: I am a big proponent of the mainspace. I generally want to see somewhere close to 1000 mainspace edits. But I'm not going to differenciate between making featured articles, creating DYKs, WikiGnoming, or any other kind of mainspace work. All editors contribute to the mainspace in different ways and I'm not going to hold their personal style against them.
  • Runs a bot
  • Sure, bots can be helpful, but I see no relationship between the skills it takes to program a bot and the skills it takes to be an effective administrator.
  • Self-nom vs. nominated
  • Will join Administrators Open For Recall