37:. If so thanks for being interested in my comments. Please note that if I am not supporting your RfA this does not necessarily mean I think you're a bad editor, just that you are not suitable to be an admin yet or I cannot tell if you would be a suitable admin (e.g. you might make a fantastic admin, just not have enough history for me to make an informed judgement).
145:
around 1000 edits if they have done many 'major' edits (such as large and/or difficult contributions) or around 2000 edits if they have mostly done 'minor' edits (quicker contributions such as reverting blatant vandalism), though I would want to see some non-minor edits as well. Around 3 active months I think is also a reasonable minimum.
157:
I might oppose if they are too short/show lack of enthusiasm for admin related tasks, or if they uncover a fundamental misunderstanding of policies. They will help me support if they help complete a good impression of the potential admin, show understanding of policies, or otherwise help persuade me
144:
To be an admin the candidate should have enough experience on
Knowledge (XXG) to know the basics of how things work, to have encountered a variety of difference situations and users, and to have build up enough history to allow others to judge if they would be a good admin. This would probably mean
64:
I generally avoid casting my vote when it will have little impact on the outcome. A large number of candidates have either very high or very low level of support. As RFA is not a popularity contest (shouldn't be!) but rather a method of gaining consensus about if someone is suitable to be an admin,
44:
of the things I think about when casting my opinion, and why I might oppose or support a RfA. I might support or oppose for another reason, specified at the specific RfA, or just from a general impression based on experience interacting with a user. These criteria will almost certainly change,
118:
This can say a lot about you. Do you have lots of people thanking you? How do you handle people who have a problem with anything you have done? I see this as a very important factor to take into account. Because of this I will oppose your RfA if you do not keep talk page
101:
oppose it if they have made a mistake and fail to correct it or fail to fairly respond to criticism. Everyone can make mistakes sometimes, I just don't want to see an admin who refuses to admit that. A willingness to learn at all times is very important for me.
68:
If I have not encountered an editor before, there are edit histories, talk pages, answers to questions, nomination statement, etc. to allow an informed decision to be made, and therefore I do not limit myself only to RFAs where I personally know the candidate.
65:
there is no need to add too many 'me too' opinions. However, I may bend this self-rule in cases when I've personally interacted with a user and support if I think they are particularly suitable, or if I can add new information to the discussion.
182:
As a vandal fighter I believe in edit summaries, including for minor edits. This applies just as much for all pages, not just articles. Edit summaries also make page histories far more useful, and help with contributions reviews.
85:
We do not need admins who are abusive and make personal attacks. A one off major personal attack (that doesn't result in a full apology soon after) or a pattern of incivility will result in an oppose.
56:
Note about 'vote': I realise RFA is not an election, I use the term vote for convenience to refer to when I cast an opinion on RFA that is in the form of support or oppose.
45:
develop, and/or be added to over time, and are therefore not set in stone rules that I will always stick to. I welcome any comments on these, please leave them on the
110:
Judged on a case by case basis, depends on how long ago the incident(s) were, if it's a trend of incidents or a one-off, how the candidate learnt from it, etc.
49:. I'm also happy to go into further detail as to why I came to a specific decision on a RfA, if you have any questions please ask on my main
203:
34:
191:
An attention grabbing signature is a 'no' for me, especially if it takes up multiple lines in edit screens and/or contains an image.
46:
123:, but simply delete comments off your talk page (except in the most obvious cases of vandalism/trolling).
120:
23:
50:
174:
I'm unlikely to change my decision based on on these alone, but several together might.
197:
131:
Must be enabled. I may email you during your RFA to check you actually read them!
166:
Not a criterion. I generally don't have too much problem with POV on userpages.
17:
77:
If you do not meet these criteria I will automatically oppose.
97:
oppose someone's RfA because they have made a mistake(s). I
33:
You might be reading this because I've voted on your
147:These figures are just guides, not 'must haves'
8:
158:that a great admin is on the way :)
7:
106:Edit warring, conflict with editors
31:
1:
204:User criteria for adminship
89:Mistakes/Errors in judgment
24:User:Petros471/RfA criteria
220:
153:Responses to questions
170:Other bits and pieces
60:When I will !vote
22:(Redirected from
211:
27:
219:
218:
214:
213:
212:
210:
209:
208:
194:
193:
189:
180:
172:
164:
155:
142:
137:
129:
116:
108:
91:
83:
75:
62:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
217:
215:
207:
206:
196:
195:
188:
185:
179:
178:Edit summaries
176:
171:
168:
163:
162:Your user page
160:
154:
151:
141:
138:
136:
133:
128:
125:
115:
114:Your talk page
112:
107:
104:
90:
87:
82:
79:
74:
73:Major criteria
71:
61:
58:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
216:
205:
202:
201:
199:
192:
186:
184:
177:
175:
169:
167:
161:
159:
152:
150:
148:
139:
134:
132:
126:
124:
122:
113:
111:
105:
103:
100:
96:
88:
86:
80:
78:
72:
70:
66:
59:
57:
54:
52:
48:
43:
38:
36:
25:
19:
190:
181:
173:
165:
156:
146:
143:
130:
117:
109:
98:
94:
92:
84:
76:
67:
63:
55:
41:
39:
32:
140:Experience
53:. Thanks.
18:User:Peter
187:Signature
51:talk page
47:talk page
40:Here are
198:Category
121:archives
81:Civility
93:I will
135:Guides
127:Email
16:<
99:will
42:some
95:not
35:RfA
200::
149:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.