Generally speaking, I expect RfA candidates to meet the following criteria:
- Must display a high level of collegiality and approachability. Must interact well with others, be helpful, and demonstrate the ability to remain polite in the face of adversity and not resort to personal attacks.[note 1]
- Should display the maturity level of a responsible adult
- Demonstrate a professional command of the English Language
- Should be entitled to display the Experienced Editor userbox, or higher. This means they should have at least 6,000 edits and have held an account for around 1.5 years, or more.
- Have a clean block log[note 2]
- Have some previous experience of vandal fighting
- Show good judgement in CSD tagging[note 3]
- Should be able to evidence detailed knowledge of policy and guidance and show good judgement in such matters
- Demonstrate a sound understanding of Wikipedia:Consensus.
- Should declare any alternate accounts and their purpose. The candidate should also declare changes of username.[note 4]
Notes edit
- ^ This is the single most important criteria I hold RfA candidates to.
- ^ Exceptions apply to editors who were controversially or accidently blocked—to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
- ^ My definition of 'good judgement' is that, on balance, most of the candidates requests for speedy deletion were fulfilled—I choose to exercise common sense in this regard. I do not hold with any system of 'statistical calculation' for determining judgement of CSD tagging. Generally, the calculation of such stats at RfA is flawed and attempts to arrive at an accurate figure are wasteful and unhelpful.
- ^ I do not expect candidates who have subjected themselves to a legitimate 'clean start' to declare this fact in the RfA; their suitability must be assessed against their new identity. I do expect such candidates to contact the Arbitration Committee in confidence and I place my trust in the Arbitration Committee to intervene in the RfA if necessary.