RfA standards edit
If you'd like numerical standards, please go to /numerical.
 This section in a nutshell:
|
| Don't do stupid or bad things, and I'll support you. |
If I have reason to believe that you are only doing something because you wish to be an admin, and not because you actually enjoy it, I will oppose you, and I will consider nothing else. I have no interest in evaluating candidates who try to pretend they'll do things they won't. It is a waste of my time. Really, RfA is not a political campaign.
Oppose edit
The following things will cause me to oppose you, period. No questions at all.
- Any block at all for threats. Those are entirely unacceptable. Even if you somehow weaseled out of the indefblock which should be given, you should never have admin powers.
- Being under an Arbcom remedy of an article ban, article probation, or general probation. If the reasoning behind this isn't clear, that is a problem.
- Being under any type of probation. That is a sign that the community does not trust you with the priveleges you have, so why would we trust you with more?
- A justified block within the last month. Duh.
- Less than some number of projectspace edits. You must show you are familiar with process, not just assert it. I would have an exact number, except experience tells me that invariably, when I think I have a reasonable number, I ignore it half the time.
- Less than 3 months of experience. I have no idea why people think they'll suceed with 4 weeks of editing.
- An acceptance statement and/or answers to questions which indicate you have no qualifications for adminship other than vandal fighting. You must understand that adminship is not simply a godmode version of Vandalproof, which some people don't seem to get.
- Any answers which read like "I want to be an admin so I will have more influence". You won't.
- Responding to every single oppose. It's okay to respond to a few, but to respond to every single one, even "per X", is bad.
- Canvassing for your RfA. You do not recruit people to comment on an RfA. Ever.
- It would look stupid if this list were exactly 10 things long.
Neutral edit
The following things will likely cause me to go neutral, although I may go with weak support or weak oppose. Possibly even a regular oppose or stronger, if you've done enough of them.
- A justified block within the last four months. You really shouldn't get blocked.
- Canvassing for an AfD. While slightly better than canvassing for an RfA, because AfD suffers less from headcountitis, it's still bad. Note that I do not consider notifying the overseeing Wikiproject or the article authors canvassing, but anything else, I will. Including canvassing everyone who has ever edited the article.
Support edit
If you don't have any of the above listed problems, I will probably support you. Do not construe this as a free support, because I know that the instant I save this, the next 10 RfAs I can't support will have problems I never thought to put here.
RfB standards edit
Be a good admin. There is absolutely no point in numerical standards here. Bonus points if you answer my optional question well:
- number. What would you do if another bureaucrat disagreed with your decision to promote an admin candidate?
- A:
I should note that I don't have a good answer to this.