User:Scott Gall/Admin criterion

I have an admin criterion, which I use as my decision for whether to support or oppose the candidate.

In fact, there are a few criteria:


 * They are at least 21 years old, and have made more than 400 edits to the article space. (I'm only 16 but I've made over 500 edits since December 2004.)
 * The user who nominated him/her is at least 18 and has made at least 250 edits to the article space.
 * Less than 5% of their edits are vandalism or encouragement of vandals. (The only time I've encouraged a vandal is the time I voted to keep an article on missing leg syndrome.)
 * At least 10 of their edits are reversions of vandalism.
 * They have contributed at least 25 times to the Wikipedia namespace. (I don't know HOW many times I've contributed to the Wikipedia namespace.)
 * They have filed at least one report of vandalism and/or placed at least one edit on RC patrol. (I filed one when this guy called Robin Donald was spamming Wikipedia in February 2005.)
 * Their account has been blocked under 3RR for a total of less than 12 hours per year of age. (Why would I breach 3RR? The only edit war I've been involved in was a practice between me and User:NazismIsntCool. She pulled out before she got a chance to violate 3RR.)
 * They have not had any edit wars for the two weeks prior to nomination. (Maybe just that edit war on Postman Pat. Greendale is in Yorkshire, and if you so much as change that, I will get Asterix to beat you up.)
 * They have some knowledge of at least one other language. (How about this one? Three is a number - "tres es un numero.")
 * They do not smoke marijuana or other illegal substances for recreational reasons. (I don't. I usually don't even have enough money to blow on stupid acts like that.)
 * They are not engaged in redirecting other users' talk pages to pictures of people doing autofellatio. (They sometimes get whole groups - one from Green Island [a suburb of Dunedin] did all the Romanian Wikipedians.)
 * They have edited at least four controversial articles without conflict. (I haven't.)
 * They know the words to their own country's national anthems plus two more. (I know the words to God Defend New Zealand [plus a satirical version I made,] Advance Australia Fair, Star Spangled Banner, and God Save the Queen.)
 * They do not have a criminal record at time of nomination. (The only crime I've committed was stealing a lemon from the supermarket - but that was when I was 4. I still don't have a criminal record.)
 * Their user page tells me or any visitor about these things, or has done so at least once before my vote was placed. (This means I oppose myself.)

See WP:RFA for current requests.