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.

RfA or Requests for Adminship is the area of Wikipedia where the editorial community has the opportunity to have a comprehensive discussion regarding whether a particular editor can be trusted with the extra buttons endowed with after being granted Administrator rights. In short, it is where we elect system operators. Of course, there is division amongst editors as to the extent to which RfA is an actual discussion, with many feeling that it masquerades as a vote. From my experience, the latter seems to be more accurate as no-chance (see WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW) RfAs invariably fail, uncontentious (80%+) RfAs pass, and semi-contentious (borderline under 75%) undoubtedly fail.

Regardless, this means that applicants are subjected to a thorough examination and an almost microscopic scrutiny from the Wikipedia community as a whole, and nothing is clandestine. Ergo, it can be insufferably frustrating, grueling and disheartening to the candidate. However, the thing to remember is that it is only a discussion about the editor in the moment, not the person overall, thus, nothing should be taken personally. Admittedly, criticism is sometimes hard to digest, and it's difficult to deal with the disparity by which the editors cast their !vote. Different editors invariably have different criteria that they feel a candidate should meet.

These are my standard requirements for supporting a request for adminship. They are not immutable and may change over time.

Edits

Dwelling on the number of edits is not the most important factor, but it's certainly the most basic, which is why this is listed first. It is not an implication of significance. These are subjective rough numbers that constitute nothing more than a baseline of edits that a prospective candidate should probably possess if they are to have requisite experience.

• ~3000+ mainspace edits
• ~500+ Wikipedia namespace edits
• 5000+ total edits
• Edit summaries should always be used, but unless this is exceptionally bad, it will not impact my decision. This in no way should be interpreted to mean that users with poor edit summary usage will receive an oppose vote.
• I generally do not mind if an editor chooses to use automated tools/scripts for editing. However, excessive use of Huggle for anti-vandalism only will be looked down upon.

Activity

• High activity in areas in which candidate mentions in their answer to question 1, especially WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:AFD, WP:CSD and WP:UAA. If you plan on working in these areas, be prepared to show some experience, and be prepared to have that experienced accessed. The speedy deletion and UAA areas are especially sensitive when it comes to new users. If a candidate flatly states that they plan to work by clearing these back logs, then I hope to see accurate CSD tagging and appropriate UAA reports. If not, then it will most likely garner an oppose. Some may find this contentious, however, I feel that it is vitally important to the project that we promote administrators who will not inadvertently bite newbies and turn away prospective users.
• At least six months tenure since joining Wikipedia, a year is preferred.
• This is the least important. I like to see at least ~100 edits per month for several consecutive months to demonstrate continuous behavioral patterns. I need to see how you edit and communicate. However, this is not binding or absolute. There are many reasons why an editor may not be able to edit consistently (e.g health reasons, work, school, family or other obligations). In such cases this point will be overlooked. This does not mean that candidates who exhibit extended breaks will garner an oppose.

Conduct

• No personal attacks in last four months
• No vandalism in last six months
• Hasn't been blocked in last 6-12 months. This reason for this variability is because it depends on the nature of the block (e.g. edit warring will be treated more leniently than personal attacks and sockpuppetry).
• No blatant copyright violations in the last 3 months. This is serious.
• No canvassing for support votes. Breaching this likely indicates one of two things: Either the candidate was unaware of the guideline (suggesting lack of guideline knowledge) or they willfully went against it, something that is not a desirable trait for an administrator.

Additional factors

• I do care if the candidate has significantly contributed to at least 1 article in the mainspace. Creation of good or featured articles are not required, but they certainly help.
• I do care how the candidate answers the main questions. One sentence for each will not be seen as favorable.
• I do not care if you run a bot
• I do not care if you have written essays
• I do not make a distinction between self-nominations and nominations from other users, although, if I see that you have been nominated by respected members of the community it may work in your favor
• I do not care if you add yourself to Administrators Open For Recall
• I do not care if you know the difference between a block and a ban as stated verbatim in the guidelines
• I do not care if you opt not to answer certain follow-up questions as that is your prerogative
• I do not care what is on your userpage as long as it does not smear another editor or Wikipedia. In other words, your opinions are your opinions.