When reviewing RfA candidates, in addition to doing a careful review of the candidate's edits, I will consider whether the candidate meets the following criteria:
- At least a year's worth of sustained, active editing experience.
- A bare minimum of 6,000 edits. I expect to see a minimum of 15,000 edits from vandal fighters.
- The majority of the candidate's edits have been made outside of the userspace.
- The candidate should be extremely well versed in the policies and guidelines of the administrative areas he/she wishes to work.
- A clean block log or no blocks for the last two years of sustained editing.
- No open arbcom cases, no frequent reports of the candidate to WP:ANI, no recent controversial incidents, etc.
- Use of descriptive edit summaries.
- Work in the Wikipedia namespace; the candidate should understand the basis on which the project runs.
- I tend to oppose candidates with more than 3 failed RfAs. Such is subject to a case-by-case analysis however.
If you satisfy the aforementioned criteria and if I have no additional comments, I'll !vote support with the comment, "Why Not?".