User:TonyBallioni/RfA criteria

My RfA criteria are quite simple:
 * 1. Not a jerk
 * 2. Have a clue

I do have an unofficial third criterion:
 * 3. Have a record: I need to be able to judge if you meet the first two.

How I vote
Its quite simple, the overwhelming majority of people, I support. I think most people meet my two requirements, so I have no problem supporting them. Adminship really isn't a big deal, and I don't like the idea that some have that there are two different classes of editors. Competent people who aren't rude to others and have been around long enough to show it are the people I want to be admins. I also think that if you pass my two criteria and you have a record, you have a good shot of passing RfA.

Reasons I'll oppose or vote neutral:
 * If you fail criteria 1, you get an oppose, sorry. People can learn the alphabet soup of Wikipedia policies, but its difficult to learn temperament on the job. If you're a jerk to people now when you've likely been considering running for RfA for some time, and thus are have been trying to behave, why should I think you won't be worse when given the tools?
 * If you don't have a record for me to judge, I likely won't say anything at first, but if the RfA isn't closed quickly, I'm likely to oppose. Why? I think point #1 is so important, and if I can't see how you interact with others over time, I don't have the trust in you that I need to give you the block button, regardless of how well you do at answering questions or are doing under pressure in the RfA.
 * If you don't have a clue, unless its really egregious, I'll likely sit it out or vote neutral. See above, most of this stuff can be learned.
 * On the rare occasion that you fail both of my criteria, I'll oppose and quite strongly. This hasn't happened yet, and I hope it never does.

Nominations
I'm open to nominating people to be admins, but my standards here are a bit different:
 * 1) Be kind: this is a much higher standard than not a jerk. Its the trait I value most in human beings, and its something I don't think we have enough of on Wikipedia. If I want to put my name behind you, I want you to meet this standard.
 * 2) Be good at what you do: again a higher standard than have a clue. I don't really care if you're a content editor, a vandal fighter, a project space regular, someone who deals with tech, or someone who deals with off-wiki things like ACC or OTRS. I do want that you are known for being very good at the areas that you work in and not just competent. Why? Because I don't want to be the person who nominates someone for the rough process that is RfA unless I think they'll pass, and being good at something and respected for it helps a lot.
 * 3) I think you can pass and pass without a ‘crat chat. I’m a big opponent of the idea that you shouldn’t run if you won’t get in the high 90s percentwise: I think it discourages good candidates from coming forward. That being said, I’m not going to encourage you to run or nominate you if I don’t think you’ll pass: I don’t want you to have a bad experience, nor do I want an RfA that will cause tensions in the community.

People I have nominated for adminship
Below is a list of people I have nominated or co-nominated for adminship. I am proud to have nominated them regardless of the outcome of the discussion:
 * , Requests for adminship/Joe Roe, 169/2/7, co-nom with
 * , Requests for adminship/Cameron11598, 20/23/4, withdrawn by candidate, co-nom with


 * , Requests for adminship/Cordless Larry,175/10/1, co-nom with
 * , Requests for adminship/Galobtter, 208/46/12, co-nom with and
 * , Requests for adminship/HickoryOughtShirt?4, 182/19/9, co-nom with
 * , Requests for adminship/Johnuniq, 192/26/5
 * , Requests for adminship/Chetsford, 151/1/4, nomination with

People I have nominated for bureaucratship
Worth its own section. I expect this to remain an extremely short list, but I'm very proud of having convinced someone to throw his hat in the ring to be a 'crat. While I think there are some very strong arguments that we don't need crats anymore, so long as we have them, they should reflect the current community.
 * , Requests for bureaucratship/Primefac, 151/7/5, co-nom with