User:Deckiller/RfA criteria

Administrators are not Gods, nor are they superstars; the only status they hold is that of trust. Jimbo himself has stated that it's "no big deal", though I would argue that it's still a nice accomplishment because it shows that the community trusts you—trust begets trust. Some would argue that Adminship is even a rite of passage! Nevertheless, Wikipedia could always use more janitors/sysops, and I believe that any level-headed editor in good standing should get the tools. Even if they perform only a few actions per year, they are still making Wikipedia a better place—often times without compromising their skills as content contributors. Specifically, I look for:

1. Four months of reasonable activity, with the word "active" being measured on a case-by-case basis; it could be 600 minor edits per month, 300 major edits per month, and so on. Users with mostly userpage and usertalk edits probably won't fare as well; you have to participate in the project to understand it. The longer the period of activity, the more likely I am to go lenient on the following areas. Experience usually leads to trust, though it can also expose a user to a greater chance of controversy and distrust due to the larger "sample size".
2. Basic understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, determined by good answers to the RfA questions, the user's overall reputation, and the user's participation in AfD, RfAs, vandal fighting, featured article and good article pushes, policy/guideline discussions, and any combination of the above. Working on Wikipedia is an active process, and I believe every administrator should have some experience dealing with both our policies as well as the procedures in which they will be involved. If you're new around here, you have to participate on AfD to know AfD. Likewise, you have to help fight vandalism to gain the skills of reverting and blocking. Users who have been around for years generally do not need to have an active participation in AfD and vandal fighting to demonstrate trust, but there needs to be some sort of evidence.
3. Recent history clear of major civility issues or disputes, such as ArbCom rulings, 3RR instances, and so forth. The key word is "major": we all slip up from time to time.
4. A decent level of maturity—of course, I'm not expecting prudes (on the contrary). However, administrators must be able to carry themselves professionally and with a sense of maturity when necessary. There's nothing wrong with cracking jokes and the occasional goofing off, but that is not the goal of this website. Userpages should be reasonably professional, as they are the first thing new users will see. Maturity also ties into civility, as immature users are more likely to be overly harsh or uncivil when performing administrative actions.

I see no reason why RfA criteria should be any higher than this. Why turn it into an elite club? They're handly tools that require trust, nothing more.