User:Femke/RfA criteria

Generally speaking, I seek two qualities in an RfA candidate, which can be demonstrated in many different ways. I'm giving hard numbers, as it's nice to strive for something concrete, but everybody is different. I prefer a low number of highly accurate calls over a more error-prone but more substantial list.

1. Kindness, or at least civility.
   1. Be communicative and remain polite when others forget.
   2. Be helpful to newer users. This + policy knowledge can for instance be shown by answering >10 WP:Helpdesk or WP:Teahouse questions.
2. Cluefullness. This can be demonstrated in many different ways:
   1. A minimum of say 7500 edits, but often more.
   2. Active for 12 months, but often more than 15.
   3. A few DYKs or a GA are a pre. When there is lack of content creation, I'd like to see this compensated strongly by other metrics.
   4. A good understanding of policies and guidelines. This can be shown in Wikipedia space discussions, in content creation, or in admin-adjacent maintenance tasks.
   5. Process experience. I might be an outlier, but I'm happy for a candidate to only want to help out with a single process, given a high level of competence & experience. The experience I look for when candidates want to help in multiple processes:
      1. To help out at WP:AfD, I expect a record of at least 50 AfD discussion, but 75–100 may be better. Success rate > 75%, and possibly above 80/85% if you usually join discussions later on with more information on the table. I'd like to see good argumentation especially when the result is different from the candidates' !vote.
      2. To help out at WP:CSD. A log with at least 35 entries. Furthermore, I expect a >90/95% CSD match rate, especially closer to the date of the RfA.
      3. To help out at WP:AE, experience closing discussions and helping out at WP:3O may be useful (say 10 requests), as well as providing actionable commentary at WP:AN/(I).
      4. To help out at WP:AIV, ~20 actioned reports are a pre, but it's not that difficult, so general competence is fine.
      5. To help out at WP:RFPP, ~20 actioned reports would be good. Show an understanding about when to block vs when to protect.
      6. To help out at WP:PERM, possibly nominate one or two good candidates for autopatrolled.
      7. To help out at WP:ERRORS, 3 GAs or a FA, and for WP:DYK say 15–25 DYKs gives me confidence, as well as experience prep building (say 10x at least).

As a nominator, my standards are slightly higher

1. I'd like to see somebody rise above the minimum standards of civility. For instance, don't only refrain from personal attacks, but also show de-escalation in conflicts by WP:focussing on content or saying something nice to people who you disagree with. Or alternatively, go out of your way to help newcomers on Wikipedia. Be mindful of people's time and be concise in your contributions. Have a friendly user page, and a non-empty talk page (showing you're reachable; it can be scary for newbies to add to an empty user talk page).
2. While I don't mind a single focus for an admin (as somebody who in practice only works at WP:PERM), the general expectations are for a candidate to have the experience to quickly learn at least 2 areas of adminning. I would not want to nominate if it's likely the community will object.