 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This is my personal set of RfA criteria. I am one of the more flexible editors here, meeting my criteria doesn't mean that you will pass an RfA. Indeed, it doesn't necessarily mean that I will !vote for you - I cannot think of everything that would make me oppose.
- Edit count - >1000
- Incredibly low for current standards, but a bright line (like 3RR). Except in exceptional circumstances, you're not getting my !vote, it's just TOOSOON.
- This is because, under 1000 edits, I just don't have enough information with which to make a judgement about you. Most editors draw this line higher - generally 10,000 is a minimum to pass RfA.
- A strong CSD record
- If one exists. I don't mind if deletion isn't your area. But, as an admin, you have the power to delete articles. If you're consistently misjudging CSD's, which are for article deletions that don't require discussion, then it's a big problem. Because I guarantee that you will end up performing inappropriate deletions. But if you made 1 CSD, 3 years ago, and it was mistaken, I really don't care.
- These aren't so crucial to me. There's a discussion for a reason. As long as you don't go too wide of the mark on your interpretation of policy, I don't mind you making mistakes.
- Non admin closures
- Persuant to the above, this is much more interesting to me. Judging consensus in discussions is a significant admin role - if you've been involved in this area, I want to see that you're good at judging consensus. !votes off the mark are fine - a bad closure is much more significant.