User talk:Mackatackastewart

WP:RFA
Before considering running for administrator, please read WP:RFAADVICE - you need years of history, and thousands of edits to even be considered. Adminiship is not a prize, it's a nasty job with a very nasty "election" process ES  &#38;L  11:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far. However, most editors including myself will oppose a nomination of anyone with less than 6 months of solid editing in the main encyclopedia unless the candidate is exceptionally qualified in some way.  Personally, I use 9 months as a minimum, but will go lower for much-better-than-average candidates.  They (and I) will also oppose those with less than a few thousand significant edits to the main encyclopedia (this excludes most script-assisted edits and most edits that should have been marked as minor, whether they were marked as minor or not), those who demonstrate that they do not have a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, those that demonstrate that they do not "play well with others" in disputes, and those with zero or almost zero participation in discussions that administrators are likely to find themselves making decisions in, such as WP:Articles for deletion discussions.  As EatsShootsAndLeaves said, the election process is pretty nasty - everything you've ever done in Wikipedia that anyone might consider even slightly negative will be scrutinized.  For this reason, the "best" time to run is probably 6-24 months after you started becoming an active Wikipedia editor, but only if you've been active the last 6-24 months and you meet all of the other qualifications above.  The longer you wait after that, the more "bad edits" you will make (it's just the rule of percentages - a 0.1% "bad edit" rate with 10,000 edits is 10 bad edits, but with 50,000 edits it's 50 bad edits), and you can expect most or all of these bad edits to be found and scrutinized if you run for administrator.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)