This is a work in progress. I am currently using this page to organize my thoughts on RfAs.
This is a list of criterion I generally judge RfAs on. This is by no means restrictive, and I will certainly not think twice about voting outside of the criteria expressed here if I should have a reason to.
Users may find that I vote somewhat more harshly than these imply, or that these are harsh enough already. I believe that admins should be well-equipped to deal with the demands of the job, and I will not hesitate to be a little harsh. I'm well aware that I fail my own criterion.
Chart edit
Any box shaded red denotes an instant-oppose.
| Things that will influence me to vote Oppose |
Things that will influence me to vote Neutral |
Things that will influence me to vote Support |
|---|---|---|
| Editing and Demeanor | ||
| < 3000 edits | 3000-5000 edits | > 5000 edits |
| < 6 months tenure | 6-12 months tenure | > 12 months tenure |
| < 3 solid months of recent editing | — | > 3 solid months of recent editing |
| Blocked < 3 months ago or Blocked < 6 months ago for something severe |
Blocked < 12 months ago, but has shown improvement since block | Blocked > 12 months ago or Clean block log |
| Candidate has a recent history of incivility and edit warring, and does not appear to be willing to change | Candidate has edit warred or been uncivil in the past, but has improved | Candidate is civil and level-headed, no evidence of recent edit warring |
| Knowledge of Policy/Adminship | ||
| Fails questions about policy within intended area of work or Demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge with relation to policy |
Quotes policy, but does not elaborate | Clearly understands policy within intended area of work |
| Sees Adminship as a trophy or a way to lead others | No clear opinion on Adminship | Sees Adminship as a way to help with maintenance |
| History of Work/Area of expertise | ||
| Has no experience in the intended area of expertise | — | Clearly has experience and knows what they're doing in the intended area of expertise |
| Very few edits to policy namespace (AIV, AN, XfD, AfC, MC, etc.) | — | Many good edits to policy namespace (AIV, AN, XfD, AfC, MC, etc.) |
| Miscellaneous | ||
| Clear history of poor judgement with relation to CSD/XfD/RfPP/AIV/SPI Note: Not an absolute if the candidate expresses a lack of desire to work in the affected area(s) |
— | Clear history of good judgement with relation to CSD/XfD/RfPP/AIV/SPI |
| Candidate is in possession of any of the permissions granted at WP:PERM, but has abused the permission | No permissions from WP:PERM | Candidate is in possession of any of the permissions granted at WP:PERM, and has used them admirably |
| — | Candidate has not opted in for edit counters (makes edit analysis harder than it needs to be) | Candidate has opted in for edit counters |
| Candidate states that they will not add themselves to CAT:AOR | — | Candidate states that they will add themselves to CAT:AOR |
| Candidate demonstrates a high level of immaturity | — | — |
Additional expectations edit
In addition, I expect certain things from users who intend to work in the following areas:
Anti-vandalism edit
- 8000+ edits
- A decent number of mainspace edits unrelated to anti-vandalism
- Wikignoming helps, but content creation is really good here
- Accuracy and judgement
- 100+ good reports to AIV
- Keeps a cool head when attacked or approached by vandals (which will happen!)
- Proper warning of vandals
NPP and CSD edit
- A good number of good CSD taggings (possibly 500+?)
- Proper use of other maintenance tags, if applicable
- Accuracy and judgement
WP:XfD edit
- Several good, well-reasoned !votes and noms that accurately interpret policy
- This means avoiding the type of scenarios in WP:AADD - I want to see applications of policy.
- Clear levels of clue
Articles edit
- A significant understanding of the policies with relation to the articles you generally deal with
- A good understanding of most other article-related policies (WP:N, WP:MoS, WP:V, WP:RS, etc)
- Articles created by the candidate should be in good condition
- No issues with referencing, quality of writing, notability (if applicable), etc
- A featured article always helps, but I'm not going to be ridiculous about it
- So does membership and activity in wikiprojects
- No edit warring
Files edit
- Just know what you're doing.
Other stuff edit
- If I come across a candidate that I'm just uncomfortable supporting (recent issues, oversights in judgement, etc), I'll probably !vote neutral for the time being.
- I try to avoid !voting based on edit counts, and instead focus on experience and judgement. It just so happens that, sometimes, an edit count is an indicator of experience.