Wikipedia:Generally accepted RfA principles

This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcut WP:GARFAP

This page lists principles regarding the

Feel free to add principles to this page, but only if you are reasonably confident they have consensus, or at the least, were held by a majority of RfA reform participants. Note that consensus can change or weaken, so do more research on a principle if you wish to open a RfC based on that.

Discussion on the talk page should not resemble another RfC on a principle. Post on the talk page only if you dispute with a principle's general or majority acceptance.

Each level 3 section should summarize one principle and discussions on it, linking to others on this page if relevant, in four sections (a template is provided in the edit box:

• The principle section outlines the proposition; i.e. the principle itself.
• The consensus section should explain the consensus for and against the principle. This section should also elaborate on the premises for and against the proposal, stating, for each reason, which groups of related editors (even ones within the supporters or opposition) support or oppose based on that reason. Although
  WP:NPOV
  normally only applies to articles, it should apply in this section (although the other two sections should be written from a supporters' viewpoint).
• The reference list should list all of the discussions cited for verifiability. Add general references by using the refs parameter in the {{Reflist}} template.

RfA voters are subjecting candidates to unreasonably high standards

• Principle: Candidates are reluctant to run for adminship because voters are subjecting candidates to unreasonably high standards. Many voters require content creation or tens of thousands of edits.
• Consensus: Majority support for this principle is relatively recent;^[1] for example, in 2008, an editor complained about the standards being too high, but many thought they were justified at the time.^[2][3] As the standards have risen, consensus for this principle has strengthened.^[4][5] In 2015, a short trend regarding content creation has developed; many RfAs failed due to their respective candidate's lack of content creation.

This proposal has moderate consensus, with supporters claiming that adminship is

not a big deal and also claiming the similar notion that Wikipedia needs more admins and anyone that can be trusted should receive the tools.^[3]

Most opposers, on the other hand, believe that adminship is a big deal and Wikipedia admins must be able to handle complex situations.