User:Slon02/RfA criteria

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

To me, a good RfA candidate should meet the following qualifications:

At least a year of active editing experience.
A minimum of 5,000 edits
A clean block log or at least no blocks in the past 2 years
No vandalism, spam, sockpuppetry or other serious warnings in the past 2 years.
High level of policy understanding
Civil behavior when communicating with other editors
At least 30% of edits should be to the article space
Reasonably accurate CSD tagging (if candidate wants to focus in CSD)
At least one non-stub well-sourced article created (GA/FA is a plus)
95%+ edit summary usage for article space
At least 500 edits to the Wikipedia space
20-30 AIV and 10-20 RFPP & UAA reports (for candidates interested in vandalism work)
70%+ accuracy & +50 !votes at AfD

However, I do not bind myself by these rules when !voting, and taking a holistic approach. It is very important that candidates be experienced in the adminship areas that they intend to work in, so logically a person who wants to work at AIV should have a strong track record of reverting and reporting vandalism. Actual content work- evidenced in article creation, expansion and maintenance- is very important in showing that the candidate understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and needs content to exist. I'll try to use common sense and decide whether a candidate would be a net positive for Wikipedia when !voting, also keeping in mind that it's no big deal.