User talk:Zappa.jake/admin coaching/standards

I've begun looking through the standards and marking what I believe people would vote in my RfA. The votes marked are ones I believe would happen, ones that I am not unsure about. If you find this page, and I have guessed your vote wrongly, or you wish to add a comment, please do so. -zappa.jak e (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" border="2" ! User !! Edit count standards, if any !! Time standards, if any !! Other notes !! Vote ! abakharev ! A  c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) ! Adambiswanger1 !Afonso Silva !AKMask  M ask !  ALKIVAR &trade; ! Andrevan (talk) ! AN (talk) ! android  79 ! Antandrus (talk) ! anthony &#35686;&#21578; ! Anwar !Ashibaka !Asbestos ! Λυδ α  cιτγ  !BaronLarf ! Bart133 ! Batmanand ! blankfaze - (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) ! Blnguyen - (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) ! BorgHunter (talk) !BrenDJ ! BryanG(talk) ! Carbonite (talk) !Cecropia !Celestianpower !Covington !Chris 73 ! ~ crazytales 56297   -talk- !Croat Canuck !CryptoDerk !CrazyRussian ! Cyde↔Weys ! Cynical (talk) ! D a Gizza Chat  &#169;
 * 3000+ edits in the main space, less for the code developers and template designers
 * 6+ months
 * Large editcount shows devotion to the project and provide material to evaluate nominees judgement and balance. No support for people with vandalous edits, blatant personal attacks, hatred, censorship, disruptions, directly or via socks. Reforming require at least a year and 10000 edits to be believable. If no material proving that a person is unsuited, just low editcounts, etc, then I vote neutral or do not vote at all.
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|50px]]
 * More than 300 edits
 * 3 months+
 * Any blocks within the last year (unless accidental, autoblocks, or getting innocently blocked) will result in an oppose. My vote generally depends on your answers to my questions.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 3000+ edits
 * 6-8 months
 * The most important criterion for my vote is level-headedness. Arguing a point for the sake of arguing, not reviewing situations carefully, or rude/unprofessional behavior will result in an "oppose".  Also, I prefer admins to display an intimate knowledge of the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia.  This is best implied by the number of Wikipedia namespace edits.
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|50px]]
 * About 2,000 good ( see note ) edits in the main namespace and about 300 edits in the Wikipedia namespace.
 * Enough time to have made the requested edits.
 * I prefer candidates who participate in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, who create and improve articles. Editors who wrote a FA, or similar, show a good level of abnegation and commitment, that's what Wikipedia needs. Participating in *fD and other project chores also shows knowledge of the policies. Civility and the use of edit summaries are also major issues.
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|50px]]
 * 750 good edits each in both main and WP namespace
 * Usually 6-12 months
 * Long usertime is important to get all the nuances of policy down. Edit count is important to be well distributed between the article space and the Wikipedia: namespace, to show as much dedication to community efforts as the information itself.
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|50px]]
 * 2000+ edits
 * 10-12 months
 * long enough to spot argumentative tendancies/temperment, too many people have been promoted then turned around and abused admin powers.
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|50px]]
 * 600+ good edits
 * 3+ months
 * I will support a good user that I feel will make a good admin regardless of my standards, low as they are. However, edits and time alone aren't enough.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 1,000-2,000+ good article edits
 * 3+ months
 * an age of at least 18-21+ years
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|50px]]
 * No absolute minimum; a few hundred well-distributed edits is generally enough
 * No absolute minimum; three months of active editing is generally enough
 * My general thoughts on the matter can be found here.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * No set amount, since edit counts can be misleading; I'm more interested in quality edits and time on the project.
 * at least three months, but I prefer more
 * Maturity, civility, good judgment, and a history of useful contributions to the project. This may be writing articles, doing cleanup work, reverting vandalism, working on policy, or any of a number of things.  I'm especially impressed by those who remain cool and do not feel the need to retaliate when they are attacked by vandals or trolls, and those who do not need to be "right" all the time.  I also need to get a sense the candidate is stable, sane, and not an extremist of some type.  I also want to see them react calmly and appropriately to any criticism during the RFA process itself, since calmness and deliberation are essential qualities in an admin.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 100+ or a good explanation as to why the user would benefit from having admin powers despite having not made many contributions
 * 3 months or substantial evidence that the user has provided her true identity
 * This should be no big deal. Adminship should be granted to anyone who wants it and agrees to use it solely for enacting the uncontroversial will of the community.  It should be taken away from anyone who willfully uses it in a way which does not have consensus support.  The sole purpose of the standards is to ensure that adminship can be successfully taken away (i.e. protect against sockpuppets).
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * None
 * 52 weeks since first edit
 * Must pass the Diablo Test.
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|50px]]
 * None
 * 2 months
 * I do not vote for anyone who can get into trouble. If there are old problems, I may support if the user has clearly shaped up. Must come up with an original and exciting new answer to question 1.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 300+ Wikipedia namespace or obvious interest in working of the system
 * 6 months
 * Must have had some interest in formation of policies or other under-the-hood working of wikipedia. Must have no evidence of incivility.
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|50px]]
 * any reasonable amount in Wikipedia namespace
 * no limit
 * Nominee needs to demonstate understanding of what it means to be an administator, and must convince me that he will use the administator tools. Edit summary use is important. Civility is a must, and I happen to favor controversial actions done in good faith. For more detail, see User:Audacity/Standards.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 3000
 * 6 months
 * User should demonstrate familiarity with dispute resolution, participate in VfD and vandal fighting, demonstrate civilty and make edit summaries. Edits should be across a variety of subjects.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * Don't care very much, see comments.
 * don't care
 * The only standards I will follow are very simple. You must have done no vandalism, although I might disregard minor vandalism in the first 100 edits, though it's still a negative factor.  Also, you must have done either some work on improving or creating articles, participated in Wikipedia projects (i.e. AFD), or done major work as a janitor or vandal fighter.  Just fixing typos doesn't require adminship.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 500 for nominated, 1000 for self-nominated
 * Three months for nominated, six months for self-nominated
 * I would add to this at least three months of little if any disruptive behaviour. An in-depth discussion of my views of RfA can be found here; but in short, as long as a candidate is civil, assumes good faith and has done not much wrong for a reasonable length of time (three months is my personal criterion), then I cannot see any reason not to give them Adminship.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 2000 edits*
 * Three months
 * More important than the stastical guidelines (IMO) are the more abstract ones, such as level of disputes in a user's past, and my familiarity with a user. *Note that this is not a strict guideline.  See my lengthy explanation of my personal standards for more information.
 * see notes
 * see notes
 * Please see User:Blnguyen/RfA. Thankyou.
 * No set minimum
 * No set minimum
 * My only standard is: Will making this user an admin help Wikipedia? Generally, a sprinkling of vandal fighting plus some experience in process and procedure is enough for me. I will only oppose a user if I believe making him an admin harms Wikipedia, and I will provide diffs (or reference some already provided) as evidence of this. If I believe a user lacks experience, the vote I will cast is usually neutral. Other things that can affect my vote: Use of edit summaries, user's tone on talk pages, behavior under pressure, and how seriously they have taken their RfA.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 1,000 edits on at least 50 pages, and have dedicated themselves to at least five articles.
 * Six months
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * Min. 1000, preferably 2000+
 * 3-6 months, depending on activity level
 * For the long version, see here. But basically, you should have good answers to the standard questions, have a decent amount of experience in the areas you want to work in, and be civil. Be good there and I'll usually overlook the editcount stuff.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 1500+ edits
 * 4-6 months - I prefer to see 6 months of activity, but an editor who's obviously ahead of the curve could get my support at 4 months.
 * In general, I agree with the idea that adminship should be "no big deal". However, since admins have access to potentially destructive tools, the community must be satisfied that the candidate can handle the power responsibly. I prefer candidates who participate in "janitorial" work such as RC patrol, tagging nonsense articles and wikifying links. There should be a fair amount of edits in the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces that demonstrate that the candidate has a grasp on policy. A strong emphasis is placed on civility and recent poor behavior may result in an oppose vote.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * Enough for the community to judge the candidate's work and interests
 * Enough to see the candidate in various circumstances
 * Edit counts are problematic unless you take a sampling of the edits themselves. Some editors have racked up multiple thousands of edits in weeks by not using the preview button and making very minor edits. Someone who wrote a complete scholarly article off-line would get one edit for it. We might look also for those who would use admin powers well; someone who mediates between users or makes many appropriate reverts by hand.
 * N/A
 * N/A
 * Past interactions do a world of good for me. If I've seen you around and like what I see, I'll most likely support. Edit counts and time mean nothing.
 * quality over quantity; please use edit summaries
 * 3+ months of above average activity in a row; the more the better; I want to see consistency and undogging commitment
 * I am looking for people who are 1) committed, 2) fair, 3) civil, 4) knowledgeable, and 5) experienced. Taking constructive criticism and being honest are plusses, extreme editcountitis and "one-upping" are huge no-nos. Hint: I consider myself as a person who would not want to be an admin, and am not intending to go through a RfA in the near future. If your profile looks similar to mine, please 1) spend some more time editing pages, 2) spend some more time on Wikipedia, and 3) collaborate with other users on article(s). Write me on my talk page for more info. Good luck.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 1000+ edits (all namespaces)
 * 3 months
 * Ideally: Civil language (no personal attacks), active talk page with more positive than negative comments, knowledge of the community and various policies, active in janitorial work. No overly extreme views. (Strengths in some areas may balance some weaknesses in other areas, perfect candidates are rare)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 500-plus
 * 2 months
 * I generally support unless there is an overwhelming negative history, like multiple 3rr blocks or incivility. I prefer 10% of edits each in User talk and Wikipedia, and generally more User talk edits than user. I' m lenient because I realise the dearth of admins and believe that any well-intentioned user with a good history would benefit the community by becoming an admin.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 500 edits spread out between various namespaces
 * 2-3 months
 * If a user always keeps a level head and not take things too seriously. Also, the user MUST not have committed multiple harmful acts to Wikipedia other than perhaps their first few edits in existence.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 1000see note/2000
 * 3 active months
 * I look at adminships on a case by case basis. 1000 edits is sufficient only in cases when the user has been around for a long time (6+ months).  3 months and around 2000 edits is fine.  I like to see some vandal fighting and/or involvement in community and talk pages.  Most importantly, if your talk page has many comments about you doing stuff wrong, you put speedy tags on things that aren't CSDs, or you attack other users, I will oppose.  The slate is wiped clean if it happened prior to a previous RFA.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * thousands
 * months
 * I will be a lot more likely to support if I've seen the nominee in action on AfD and elsewhere, sometimes even despite a shortage of edits/time. I am intentionally vague on time and count, because I approach each nom holistically. I will be less likely to support if the mainspace edit summary usage is below 100%. I will be a lot less likely to support if the nominee is younger than 19. I have a zero tolerance policy for unatoned for incivility. As my RfA positions mature, I am becoming one of the harder to please voters. Please don't be offended if I am one of the few who are opposing your RfA.
 * &mdash;
 * &mdash;
 * Every candidate is a unique person, so I perform a unique analysis on each one.
 * 1,000+ edits
 * 6 months
 * As part of the 1000 edits I would expect a decent amount of Wikipedia and Talk space edits, and if the person has been particularly active in those areas I would support them even if they haven't been a member for 6 months. I also expect adminship candidates to actually want to do something with their tools, rather than wanting to be admins 'just because'. Where an admin has been desysopped by Arbcom, I will require a very good reason for supporting a reapplication. The candidate must have a validated email address, as email contact is essential for an admin.
 * 2000 (though not always necessary) & distributed to most namespaces
 * 3 very active months or at least 5 reasonably active
 * If I happened to be acquainted with the user personally and know that he is trustworthy, then naturally I'll be more inclined to support and vice versa. Contributions to improving articles and managing the encyclopedia are both required because the most important thing is that this is an encyclopedia but Admins have an extra responsibilty to maintain law and order similar to policemen. Lastly of course, he/she should be respected among the community (ie. kind, civil, calm, etc.)

In one sentence, the user must need the admin tools for his work at Wikipedia and is trustworthy enough to use them. !DarthVad e r !Dbiv !Deathphoenix !Denelson83 !dlohcierekim ( Talk  ) (  Contribs  ) !Dmn !valign=top|
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * 1000+ with at least 100 edits in the WP namespace
 * None. An editor who has been here for say a couple of months and has edited a lot will know close to as much as an editor who has been here for 6 months.
 * Adminship is no big deal. If the editor shows that they understand something about the WP namespace (ie. with like 100 edits in WP:) and are mostly civil, then they should be accepted. Adminship has nothing at all to do with contributing to articles, so any criteria to do with having to have made/contributed to making a featured article or having to make heaps of "good contribution" article edits is nonsense.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * Must have contributed significantly to writing new articles and expanding existing ones
 * Several months
 * Must have a user page giving some details about the candidate. Discounts on the writing requirement for those who have contributed to non-English Wikipedias. No strict requirement for edit numbers because a small number of major edits and new articles is far, far preferable to thousands of minor wikification edits, category changes and suchlike; and editors who only do the housekeeping tasks should not look to me for support.
 * 1000 (~2000 for self-noms)
 * 6 active months
 * User must show some familiarity with Wikipedia processes (including activity in the Wikipedia-space) and have performed some non-admin maintenance tasks already. Answers to question 1 are often helpful in showing me how familiar the user is with Wikipedia processes. Lack of recent "negativity" is an asset, though how the user handled this is much more important. I usually only vote for users who I have personally "seen around", though I'll sometimes vote on new users who need more experience while avoiding pile-on voting.
 * At least 2000 edits
 * Nine months minimum
 * I will also analyse such properties as proportion of total edits summarized, general attitude of messages on the candidate's user talk page, and possibly interaction between the candidate and myself, if any. Not interacting with me, however, is not a requirement for me to support.  If a potential admin has ever had a dispute with me, no matter how trivial, I will oppose that candidate on all subsequent RFAs, because I have a permanent memory of such events.
 * 3000+ edits or equivalent service-- mediation committee, OTRS, multiple wikipedias
 * Generally at least 4 - 6 months.
 * Demonstrated ability, Barnstars, Major significant contributions weigh for support. History of vandalism, recent blocks, recent serious conflicts (Uncivility), demonstrated unreadiness weigh against.
 * 2000
 * 6 active months
 * Must not have a history of vandalism or lying. Must be civil.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]

Doug Bell

 * 2500 (3000 for self-nom) with at least 1500 in main article space and article talk pages combined  (these are guidelines, I will make exceptions when warranted) 
 * 3–4 active months  (these are guidelines, I will make exceptions when warranted) 
 * Civility and maturity are the most important qualities—must have enough history of interactions with other users to be able to judge these. Involvement in Wikipedia policies to some extent is required, but excessive involvement in policy and talk pages to the exclusion of article contributions is a potential problem.  Must demonstrate civility and maturity.  Must use edit summaries—anything below 80% on major edits probably gets an oppose vote except for exceptionally strong candidates in all other areas.  Over involvment in side issues such as the userbox debates, regardless of which side, is a red flag.  Oh, and civility and maturity are a must.

While vandal fighting is essential, I'm not particularly swayed to grant adminship if a majority of the edits are from vandal fighting&mdash;I'd rather have admins who are engaged in creation rather than simply whacking vandals because I think that gives a better perspective for dealing with disputes. Although particularly prolific, mature and civil vandal fighters might get the nod. ! Draicone (talk) !Drini !Durin ! ¡Dustimagic! ( T / C ) ! E lkman - (talk) !Eluchil404 !Essexmutant ! Evan  Robidoux ! Fir e  Fo  x !Firsfron ! Folksong ! Frenchman113 (talk) !Friday ! General  E  isenhower ! G . H  e ** My standards are not written in stone. Previous interactions with the candidate will almost definitely affect my decision, whether it be positive or negative, and my "requirements" may be ignored in those cases. For candidates that I haven't interacted with in the past, my "requirements" will usually act as the benchmark, but, like before, nothing is definite. ***Brackets  indicate a possibility, but does not indicate definiteness. !Goldom !Grandmasterka !Gray Porpoise !Gren !Grutness !Haham hanuka !Haider !Harro5 !Haza-w !Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) !Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; !Idont Havaname !Ifnord !Inter !Jdavidb !Jamyskis !Jaranda !Jaxl (talk) !jguk !JHMM13 (T - C) !JIP !John Reid Since keeping cool, especially under provocation, is essential, any candidate who discusses his pending RfA on my talk page or responds to a question here defensively will get my downcheck.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * About 1000 article edits, 200-250 talk
 * 3+ months
 * Case by case basis really. Can't think of an RfA I haven't supported though.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|50px]]
 * enough
 * enough
 * Must be wiling and be corageous enough to be rogue and cabalist when it's needed for the good of the wiki. And must understand debates are not votes (and thus omgadminadbuse close debates weighing arguments and not numeric count
 * None
 * None
 * Extreme? Not at all. # of edits says nothing about knowledge of policy and how to apply it, and that's what being an admin is about. People voting on RfAs should be looking at quality of edits. # of edits is an attempt to equate all edits the same, giving an objective value of "1" to everything from a correcting a minor spelling error to 30kb worth of well researched article space. See my admin voting measures, and seek help to cure your editcountitis.
 * 2500+ edits depends on quality (personal disgression)
 * 3+ months active membership
 * Must have been involved in AfD discussions and other project and article name-space edits, and have done at least a minimal amount of vandal fighting. Demonstrating civility, maturity, and interaction (user talk-space edits) with others in a friendly and positive manner.
 * Around 2000 edits, but can be flexible
 * At least 3 months
 * Generally, I'm looking for people who can be reasonable in their interactions with other users. I also think administrators should view their role as a technical role, not as a political role, although administrative decisions tend to force others into political disagreements from time to time.  Someone who engages in a lot of controversy and drama wouldn't make a good admin.  (For examples, see the pedophilia userbox wheel war that happened back in February.)  Someone who's familiar in WP:AFD and WP:RFA would also get my attention.
 * 500 edits total with at least 100 in Wikispace
 * 1 to 2 months
 * I look for users who have demonstrated a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and are involved in housekeeping chores already. One can do a lot of admin type chores without having an official mop.
 * 2000+ edits (min. 10% of edits to be on Talk pages or Wikispace)
 * minimum 3 months
 * I look for potential administrators to come across as mature, in order to set a good example to the community. Edit summaries are very important. (NB: Self-nominations make no difference to my opinions.)
 * 1,000+ (2,000+ for self-nomination), with a good amount of edits in the main (article) namespace.
 * Indefinite, depends on quality of edits.
 * 1) Good use of edit summaries.
 * 2) Does a good job upholding the policies and guidelines and being civil.
 * 3) Active around RfA, AfD, etc.
 * 4) Active on WikiProjects.
 * 5) Counter vandalism.
 * 6) Must not commit vandalism/spam/etc.
 * 7) Must not have been blocked within the past year, excluding times when autoblocked, innocently blocked, accidentaly blocked, etc.
 * 1) Must not have been blocked within the past year, excluding times when autoblocked, innocently blocked, accidentaly blocked, etc.
 * Reasonable amount
 * Reasonable time
 * Must be kind and civil
 * 2000 edits a minimum
 * Minimum 3 months experience (exceptions can be made)
 * Must be actually willing to fight vandalism, since these are the tools with which s/he will be issued. I recently had to change one vote from support to neutral because the Admin candidate did not seem at all interested in checking for vandalism. The guy below me says it best: "Editors who want to revert vandalism would make better use of sysop tools than those who do nothing but write great articles."
 * 300 edits, with a majority being original content, vandalism reverting or simply, high-quality edits
 * 3+ months
 * My only requirements for supporting an admin candidate are the quality of their edits, their desire to revert and delete vandalism, and most of all a desire to uphold Wikipedia standards and maintain a structure of civility and neutrality.
 * Enough (around 300-500)
 * Active for 3 months
 * I don't usually vote on these, but all I require is a good rationale for seeking adminship and some basic experience with the workings of wikipedia. A user can have a million edits and a thousand featured articles, but I'll still oppose him/her if they don't give a good reason for requesting adminship.
 * Enough (at least 500-1000 may be a decent rule of thumb, but editcountitis is silly.)
 * Enough (at least 2-3 months may be a decent rule of thumb, but behavior is more important than time.)
 * Temperament, level-headedness, and a willingness to admit mistakes are key. See User:Friday/admin for more.
 * 100+
 * Enough monthes to get aquantied with Wikipedia
 * I think an admin should have the nessary power to fight vandals. He or she should also joined at least 10 projects. Also he/she should be very helpful to new users. I think that the quality of admin does not depend on how many awards he or she or how many messages he has sent or has on his talk page. I think that the quality of a Wikipedian depends on how hard the user works on this encyclopedia. That is just my opinion.
 * 1000+ edits in all with 600+ in the Main Namespace and 150+ in the Wikipedia Namespace** (80%+ Major Edit Summary Usage in the last 150 Edits)** (65%+ Minor Edit Summary Usage in the last 150 Edits)**
 * 3+ Weeks** and showing signs for continued activeness (Wikibreak(s) Excepted)
 * Candidate must kind, civil, and helpful, and must not have any history of vandalism (I may reconsider if the vandalism took place in the first 20 edits, but generally not after (Unless very good reason and explanation is given. Either way, it would still affect the record.)). He/she must also show good intentions and contributions towards the project. This may be through articles, vandalism patrol, or any other forms that would benefit the community. Interactions with other users and an active email account are also an essential elements. It's okay if the candidate made mistakes in the past--we all make mistakes--as long as he/she realises the mistake and correct it. :)  Unlike some other users, I will not be using the 1FA standard in RfAs. I respect the views of the users who do use it, for featured articles are important, and they reflect the best works on Wikipedia. However, 1FA is, in no way, an accurate benchmark or standard of a good editor, and in a way, it can be quite insulting to say that someone is not a "real" editor. But if the candidate has worked on a featured article, there's no doubt that that will definitely benefit their RfA.   Other possible requirement(s) (This list may be incomplete) :
 * Activated E-mail
 * The more the better
 * See box to the left
 * I don't really follow any set guidelines. I previously said here 1500+ edits, 6+ months, but found I never really stuck to that. If you understand policy, make good edits, answer the questions well, and participate in ways that you would benefit from admin tools, I will probably support you. Particular things I will almost certainly oppose for are breaches of civility (including but not limited to personal attacks), and being hardheadeded. (I don't think a user who refuses to admit they've made a mistake would make a good admin).
 * Roughly 2500 edits, including 1000+ article edits, 500+ WP-space edits, and 350+ all talk edits
 * 3 months
 * My standards are relatively quite complex; see my criteria. I seem to give more weight to WP-space edits than others.
 * Preferably 500+ edits, but may vary based on the quality of contributions
 * However long it takes to become acquainted with Wikipedia's guidelines
 * Although it is excellent to see users who have made many hundreds of edits and spent many months on the site, just about anyone can get my vote if they have proven that they are useful, and will not abuse their powers. Article-namespace edits usually make for the best, but there's nothing wrong with working on other namespaces.
 * Depends
 * Preferably 6 months+
 * Contact of the voter with the nominee is very important. It allows one to see the nominees conduct before looking at longevity and edit counts  which are secondary and tertiary considerances.  If contact with a user has been positive then try to view some of their other edits.  Knowing the user matters a lot to how you evaluate the edit count.  If they are a creator of articles then maybe 500 is a ton and shows that they can resolve disputes about their own content.  If they have 9000 it may mean they just do RC patrol a lot.  One must evaluate based on this.
 * preferably 1200+ edits, 1000+ of them in article space, including large, well-written contributions to several articles
 * minimum 3 months
 * Edits should be spread through several namespaces, showing involvement with Wiki community and the internal workings of Wikipedia. User talk page should provide evidence of positive interaction and rapport with other users. Many other features are taken into account, though not vital (bilingualism is a plus but is not essential, for example)
 * 1000+ edits
 * minimum 5 months
 * More than three months
 * I just want to be sincere with wikipedia by giving some support esp about Pashtuns. I am a regular visitor of this site and really appreciate it even advised my friends to visit and explore.
 * I just want to be sincere with wikipedia by giving some support esp about Pashtuns. I am a regular visitor of this site and really appreciate it even advised my friends to visit and explore.
 * 1000 edits
 * Enough to grasp Wikipedia policy.
 * Must be involved in Wikispace activities (eg. VfD, RC patrol, peer review), and do good work there.
 * Several hundred edits (800+) is plenty. 1500+ for self-nominees.
 * Long enough to have established xemself as trustworthy.
 * Must have shown xemself to be a worthy force in countering vandalism and showing knowledge of and adhering to the five pillars. SysOp rights should not be given lightly, but not be denied to those in whose hands good will be done.
 * A thousand good edits is usually enough. More if you've got loads of minor edits, less if you've done loads of substantial edits.
 * No limit.
 * Your talk and contributions pages need to show a history of good edits to encylopedic articles and civil edits to talk pages. You need to have taken part in some of xFD, RfA, stub or category sorting, vandal fighting, etc.  You need to have demonstrated that you have a good grasp of policy, and you match WP:GRFA.
 * No standard
 * No limit.
 * I only support editors that I am reasonably confident will not abuse the tools. I oppose all editors who I have reasonable doubt over tool abuse. I am neutral on all other editors I interact with regularly.
 * Several hundred edits each in several namespaces, and over 1000 total (2000+ is better).
 * Case by case, but long enough to know our policies well and adhere to them, especially NPOV, civility, and no personal attacks.
 * The nominee should be approachable, pleasant to deal with, and familiar with / abiding by our policies. They should use edit summaries often and should make them understandable to newer editors (this ties into approachability).  I prefer that they not delete comments which are not vandalism from their Talk page.  Additionally, I prefer if they are nominated by an experienced editor who's well-known in the Wikipedia community; though I don't see self-nomination as a reason to oppose (except in some cases of multiple self-noms).  My user page also has information about my admin criteria and lists the nominees that I have supported.
 * 2000 (Deleted edits count)
 * Six months
 * Well thought out answers to questions are bonus. Having seen you around AfD and giving logical rationales for voting. Even if I disagree? Especially if I disagree! =) As long as civility and assuming good faith are the first tools in your tool box, my vote is yours - though I tend to only vote on users I have interacted with/seen/noticed or have real problems with their nomination.
 * 1000+
 * 3-6 months
 * See Inter/Admin for an explanation on why I almost never vote.
 * 1400+
 * 1 year
 * Time on Wikipedia is more important to me as an admin criterion than it is to most other Wikipedians. It is also more important to me than edit counts.  But more important than both is a demonstrated commitment to both NPOV and consensus.  Potential admins should be the kind of people who believe that NPOV and consensus can build a great encyclopedia.
 * At least around 1000, more if the user hasn't made many "useful" contributions or has been known to violate rules in the past.
 * At least 3 months, 2 of them squeaky clean with no blocks or warnings.
 * I don't think an admin needs to be a particularly good article writer. We have many admins here whose first language is not English. However, the responsibilities and powers afforded to admin dictate that he/she be able to resolve disputes effectively, follow Wikipedia policy, but be flexible when implementation of WP:IAR would be both in the interests of improving Wikipedia and considering consensus.
 * 250+ Wikipedia Namespace Edits. 100+ Talk space Edits 750 Overall any less Oppose or Neutral
 * 2 months
 * Must have plenty of Wiki namespace edits for me in becoming a adminship. Must be Civil and must not have no more. Must have no glimpse of vandalism in the last 3 months nor any severe conflect. Must be involed in both NP and RC patrol.
 * 1000+ (across various namespaces)
 * 3 months (flexible)
 * See my RfA page for more details.
 * 0
 * 0
 * My criterion is that "the candidate must have helped get at least one article up to featured article status". To achieve this means that the candidate will have demonstrated many of the qualities most desirable in an admin. I do have a "sense test override" if a candidate meeting this criterion appears unsuitable for other reasons. For more information see: User:Jguk/admin criterion.
 * ~1,500+ good contributions since any minor infractions (vandalism, attacks, rudeness, biting newbies etc.) have happened
 * 1.5 - 3+ active months
 * One of the biggest things I look for is a candidate who does more than just going around reverting vandalism. In the absence of knowing every little detail about Wikipedia policy, you should at least be a vandal-hunter/AfD hound/user talk hound, so you know how to moderate or suppress a conflict in the proper circumstances.
 * 500 to 700 edits minimum, preferably spread out across several namespaces
 * 3 months
 * The candidate should already be well familiar with what Wikipedia is and what is accepted for articles and what isn't. He/she should preferably be active on WP:AFD, either nominating articles, commenting on other nominations, or both. Having been involved in an edit war is no problem, but blatant personal insults to others is a big no-no.
 * 1000+ (with good namespace balance)
 * 3+ mo
 * Numbers tell only half the story. I can and will grind several axes on RfA:
 * Cool head and respect for Truth required.
 * Good use of edit sums; "100%" isn't good enough if they're obscure or snippy.
 * Involvement in project and other namespaces.
 * Prefer not to see too many typos or bad grammar.
 * Ability to answer Q1 without mentioning vandals is a plus.
 * A silly sig (images, funky chars, rainbow colors) may convince me that an editor is immature

If you look like you really need adminship I'm inclined to oppose. Sorry; but this is not for you; it's for the project. !Johntex !Jondel -Good standing and civility with others is important.Please. -Wrath of Kahn-types ->out.Trigger -happy admins->out -Ability to handle conflict./dispute Copied from the talk: just stating or repeating the o-b-v-i-o-u-s ...
 * 2000+ (including 1,000+ to Article space and 500+ outside the Article space)
 * 9 months or more (preferably a year)
 * Should: have consistent (80%+) use of edit summaries, established e-mail, abide by WP:CIVIL, has some experience with vandal fighting and some participation in policy discussion or Meta, demonstratably learned from any major mistakes or altercations.  Should not: be within 60 days of any major disciplinary problem.
 * 700+ substantive contributions
 * 6 months
 * -To Ads and future ads and wannabees, please focus on fun and growth. Who wants to bee here if there are tooooo many strict rules?

To present and future administrators please, 1)Focus on FUN & GROWTH. Please focus on making wikipedia a fun great place to grow and contribute. Please don't be abrasive, sarcastic, impolite. If people get pissed off, they won't say why, they just totally loose interest and leave.

2) 3 Cheers for the Policeman! Fighting vandalism and protecting copyrights are a must. Cheers to the unsung heroes! Policemen get misinterpreted. But... Don 't overdo copyright violation checking don't expect innocent contributers to be happy about being misconstrued. Sincere policemen admins are needed. Authoritive, Trigger happy, Wrath-Of- Khan types -NOT.

With some wannabees, you can almost feel abuse fo adminstrative powers or disasters about to happen. 3) Keep the engine running! Other administrator stuff to keep the wikipedia engine sound and running smoothly. ! Jusjih (talk) ! Jwrosenzweig (talk) ! Karmafist ! Kelly Martin (talk) ! Kitia My talk My contibs ! Kookykman| (t) e !++Lar: t/c !Linuxbeak ! ~Linuxerist  E/L/T !Looper5920 ! Lowellian (talk) ! Lst27 (talk) ! MacGyverMagic (talk) ! Mangojuice (talk) ! Marskell (talk) !Masssiveego (talk) !   _-M     o     P-_ ! Masterjamie (talk) ! Mets 501 (talk) ! Merovingian (talk) ! Messedrocker (Talk) ! Miborovsky (Talk) ! Mike Halterman (talk) ! Mindspillage (talk) ! Mmeinhart (talk) ! Mmounties (talk) ! Mostly Rainy (talk) ! Musical Linguist (talk) ! Naconkantari ! — Natha  n  ( talk ) ! Netoholic (talk) ! Nichalp (talk) Note: I personally vote for only people who I bump into or have seen their signature a couple of times in WP.
 * 2000 edits but not absolute
 * 6 months but not absolute
 * I have seen a very persuasive administrator deleting too many pages without leaving any reasons at Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wikisource where I am also an administrator (there but not here). This is why I cannot support candidates who often fail to provide edit summaries. Who knows if they will fail to explain the reasons to delete pages. All candidates for adminship should always allow emails from others in case they, after becoming administrators, block someone. In addition to having user pages, administrators should always explain the reasons to delete pages, or they will bite new comers. Signatures should not have images.
 * 500+ quality edits (preferably 750+)
 * 3 months
 * A user with less than 750 edits and less than 4 months' service needs to be notably well-tempered and suited to the role of admin. Users above 750 and 4 months normally need to have merely avoided controversy and shown a reasonable level of familiarity with policy.
 * 2,000 normally, 1,300 if active, but neither is a set in stone standard
 * As long as it takes. Normally 6 months or so.
 * They should have a general grasp of policy, no consistent edit warring or POV pushing, and they need to respond to questions and critical comments on the RfA well. Self Nominations are a minus for me, but not a disqualifier. I vote my conscience, not on stats. Stats just are tools that are tiebreakers where it isn't "clear".
 * No specific count. Failure to use edit summaries reliably is a negative factor, however.
 * One week in most cases, although I might be willing to bend on this.
 * I actually look at the candidate's answers to the standard questions; they should tell me something about why Wikipedia will benefit from making this candidate an admin. Specifically, answers to the first question that sum up to "I want to delete things", "I want to be able to hit rollback" or "I want to be able to block people" are bad answers.  An indication that the candidate understands the meaning of ignore all rules is a major positive.  The candidate must not have a history of getting rolled back (except by admins who abuse the rollback tool), of being a POV warrior, or generally of being a dick.  Must play well with others.  IRC participation is a plus.  Evidence of positive participation in conflict resolution is also a big plus.
 * More than a thousand mainspace edits. For self noms, about two thousand total edits. More would be great. And ofcource, those figures don't include vandal edits.
 * About four months, give or take a few weeks.
 * Always be civil, and always help others. Welcome users lots, and participating in wikiprojects. Always try to help others become admins, and try comforting stressed users, including fighting vandalism yet still trying to make the vandal feel welcome. Generally just be a role model. And correcting spelling would be a plus.
 * No standard.
 * No standard.
 * Civility and cool in the face of the fire are my number one concern.
 * With rare exceptions, at least 2000 edits, with a good spread among namespaces. Appropriate use of minor edits. 100% (or close) meaningful edit summaries.
 * Three months minimum with some exceptions, six months recommended
 * (Note: It's quite conceited of me to put mine up here, since I myself don't pass (my seriously active time here is shy of 6 months)!!!! But I doubt I'll ever seek adminship right away, it's hard work, not for everyone, glad others want to do it!) Should have enough edits in projectspace to show interest in shaping, or at least understanding, policy.  Enough edits in WP:AfD to show clear understanding of how things work there since that's a very contentious area. Strict deletionists or strict inclusionists need not apply. Enough user talk page edits to show ability to gracefully work with users even in contentious situations. Now that there is a tool (alternatively, just use the preferences setting) to force summary usage, there is no excuse for not always having a summary, and once you are reminded by it, make it a good, meaningful one. Review of talk pages at random should show civility, friendliness (there's a difference), respect for competence, and non newbie biting.  Articlespace edits should show some good article improvement or creation of new articles, not just reverting/vandal fighting or grammar fixes, etc (in other words, are you a good editor with solid contributions to the project itself?).  Using WP:IAR to go against consensus without a very good reason is a clear downcheck for me. Excessive defensiveness in responses to objections raised by others, or in general in your talk, is a clear downcheck as well. If I see evidence that you had these problems in the past but you've shown consistent improvement I will not hold the past against you. None of us are perfect. Comments on any of this welcomed.
 * Around 1000 edits total; major and minor edits should be more or less balanced. Must not have "a diet consisting of minor edits". Featured Article help nice but not necessary.
 * Three months minimum, four months recommended
 * Have fun! Go out of your way to interact with the community. IRC participation, as well as belonging to Wikipedian groups, lets people know who you are. Be nice to newcomers. Participate actively in VFD, TFD, CFD, use the talk pages, create pages, edit pages, and participate in at least a few adminship votes.
 * 150 Mainspace, 150 User Talk Space, 150 Wikipedia (Especially some participation in *fd or something similar)
 * 1 Week
 * Even these may not be strictly enforced. I primarily base it on my trust in the user, based on their actions, and their showing of WikiLove and Wikiquette.
 * 3500 - 4000; edits across all facets of the namespace
 * 5 months
 * I expect a lot out of editors so I set standards that, at least for me, ensure the person is well versed in ALL aspects of the project. I prefer well rounded admins so you will not see me write "We need more vandal fighters like this."  I expect maturity, patience and an intricate working knowlege of the project's rules.  I do not care about your politics as long as you are willing to compromise and present all sides of an issue.  Finally I am but one person and do not know everyone that is nominated since we all tend to have our own corner of the encyclopedia in which we dwell.  Therefore, if a large number of users I trust give a Yes vote then I will most likely lean that way.
 * 2000+ mainspace edits
 * 6+ months
 * In general, a user should meet both my edit and time standards to get my support. I will make exceptions for cases in which I know the user's work well and am convinced the user would make a good admin. I oppose adminship for users that are missing a userpage (that is, a user with a redlinked username).
 * 1200+ edits (not just in one namespace)
 * 2 months
 * I won't support anyone that doesn't use edit summaries. RC Patrol, voting in polls, etc. would also help gain my support vote.
 * 2000+ edits
 * 3 months
 * These standards aren't set in stone. I may support editors who I know to have made exceptional edits, or are very involved in various different parts of the project. Also, I find civility very important. Users who are the topic of valid RfC or arbitration cases within the last 2 months of their history will not get my support and won't get it after that unless a changed attitude is apparent. Also users that can be demonstrated to fuel revert wars without attempting civil discussion will not get my vote.
 * 300+ article mainspace edits, 600+ talk and project space edits
 * 3 months
 * My main criteria is a user's motivation for seeking adminship, and their behavior. Admins should be better than free of behavior problems: they should be good examples.  Despite the questions, you never know what an admin will really do once they get their mop and bucket.  I want to make sure the admin goes well beyond WP:CIVIL and actively respects other users, consensus, and wikipedia's mission.  As far as I'm concerned, just about anyone could use the rollback tool reasonably, but the power to block and ban has to be controlled more carefully.
 * Roughly 1000 but more concerned about distribution across namespaces than overall number.
 * 3+ months
 * I do not find it relevant whether an RfA is a self-nom. The person does or does not have community trust and it shouldn't be considered poor form to nom yourself. I need to see Wiki space edits, at least 150, though Main space should be a plurality or majority of overall. You need to know what the deletion pages are and how they work. Lack of edit summaries is not an oppose reason in-itself but may turn a support to neutral. I'm not particularly concerned about whether you spend a lot of time on Talk pages; some articles need it, some don't. Finally, the obvious stuff: no vandalism, personal attacks etc.
 * Varies on quality.
 * Varies on character.
 * Nominee must be people person, hardworking, civil, trustworthy, helpful, kind, temperance, friendly, have good manners. An understanding of the english language, have a good vocabulary.  Understands the workings of Wikipdia and a be good tutor. I find post counts and time on Wikipedia factor toward the above but may not necessary reflect on the person character.  Last thing I want to see is another power tripping Admin that deletes the hardwork of other people for the sheer pleasure of destroying other people's work.  While I understand there are limits to wikipedia bandwidth, and server hard drive space.  Admin should be open minded, and flexible to variation, and have a broad understanding of what is useful everyone else, rather then what is just useful to me.  I feel Admin must be intelligent, wise, clever, happy, unstressable do gooders, that has the time to be on Wikipedia, and that will take the time to both smell the roses, and keep things organized with a clear mind.
 * Base # of 2000; varying (see notes)
 * Base # of 3 active months; varying (see notes)
 * My categories for voting on a user are fairly simple; I am fairly indifferent to the number of edits and months spent on Wikipedia. The editor must, however, show good knowledge of Wikipedia policy, be civil (not engaged in edit wars, etc.), have a good amount of social experience (talk page edits), be active for at least 3 months, and be either specialized (vandalism, categorizer) or everything-at-once. Also, answers to questions are a factor, and the nominee's patience/temper is a variable as well.
 * 300+ constructive edits (wikification, fighting vandalism, etc.)
 * 3 months min, 6+ months preferred
 * Nominee should have good knowledge of policies and guidelines, also show civility and avoids destructive actions whenever possible, like revert wars.
 * At least 1000 article edits, at least 350 Wikipedia space edits, at least 350 combined talk, user talk, and Wikipedia talk edits.
 * At least 3 months.
 * See my standards.
 * At least 1000 or so article edits.
 * At least 3 months or so.
 * Nominee should have e-mail set and enabled. Also, not being a vandal/troll/sockpuppet helps, too.
 * At least three digits
 * Long enough
 * They're polite, they understand the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines (especially the most important ones), they want to help Wikipedia and they must know when to do the right things.
 * colspan=3 | One Article to write, One Article for peer review, One Article be made FA and the RFA shall bind him.
 * usually over 1,000
 * 10 to 12 weeks
 * Usually I only vote on candidates that I have personally noticed or interacted with. I am not a fan of piling on "Support!" votes because it's the trendy thing to do. I'm not really anal about time lengths like a few editors are...I think 2 1/2 months to three suit just fine. Also, over 1,000 edits is a good number for me. I usually don't pay attention to the introductory sentences, use of edit summaries, or the questions at the bottom. As I said, if I've noticed you and the work you've done, that should really speak for itself. I usually support by putting That's hot in lieu of Support. It means the same thing; it's just my quirk. If I know you and we've interacted, I don't care if you alert me to your ongoing RFA on my talk page. In fact, I welcome it! If you have any more questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk as well.
 * no set count
 * no set time
 * My main criterion is that I trust the candidate to use good judgment. Wikipedia benefits by having both diligent grunt workers and heavy content contributors as admins, so I won't oppose for concentrating too heavily on one or the other. Enough edits and time to prove that the editor is familiar with policies, guidelines, and the community, and can be trusted to use admin powers responsibly, which varies on an individual basis. I prefer cool-headed people who have shown an active interest in Wikipedia policy and who interact productively with other editors (this includes working toward consensus and avoiding edit wars); I'm more likely to offer an opinion on people I have personally interacted with.
 * 1000 edits with at least 500+ edits on namespace
 * 4 months
 * Self-noms are no big deal to me. As long as the user is friendly, uses good judgement, and communicates well with other users they will get my vote.
 * no set count no set distribution
 * 4 months
 * It matters not whether an RfA is a self-nom or not. I look to the answers to the questions, comments by other (by me) respected users, and I do got to the candidate's page and talk page(s) to get a feel for maturity, civility, capability, supportiveness, etc.  I use Interiot's tool mostly to help me check the quality of contributions in all spaces with activity.  In other words, I try to look past the facade.  I look for all level of involvement and I will vote for specialists with activity in only one area (if need be) - and have done so in the past - if the quality of contributions is there and I'm convinced the tools will help them to better do their job.  Prior difficulties or infractions are usually not a concern so long as more than 3 months with regular activity have passed since the incident(s).
 * 100 edits
 * none
 * I'll be happy to support anyone as long as they have at least 100 edits. Getting familiar with Wikipedia usually takes only a couple of weeks.
 * 800 edits (1000 for selfnoms), with a good balance of article, talk, and user talk, plus some experience of Project pages
 * 4 months (6 months for selfnoms)
 * No history of foul language, abuse, or ridiculing other editors. No history of filing hasty RfCs or RfArs, or of adding nasty comments. A record of using edit summaries nearly all the time for articles, plus indication that the candidate uses the preview button: what can be done in one edit should not take five edits. A record of helping out in chores such as archiving talk pages would be nice. Featured articles are not important. Major edits are not important. Calmness and courtesy on the talk page are much more important than the number of edits, and where a candidate clearly displays these qualities, I am willing to bend on all other standards.
 * 2000+ edits and 200+ in Wikipedia namespace
 * 3 active months
 * Users need to be well-versed in Wikipedia policy and be active in several Wikiprojects. Editors should not have any recent history of vandalism/edit wars/blocks.  An email address is a must, as people that have been blocked need some way of contacting the administator that blocks them.  Good spelling is also a positive quality.  Also, while edit summaries are not mandatory, they greatly help the users that participate on RC patrol. I do not care about age, as levels of maturity vary from individual to individual and maturity is not tied directly to age.
 * N/A
 * N/A
 * I agree with some other users on this page: Past interactions help a lot. If I like what I see and am convinced the candidate in question won't abuse the tools, that's enough to sway me. The prospective candidate should have some level of people skills (not everyone does), how to deal with conflicts, edit wars and the like. Knowledge of policy and knowing when to apply it is also a factor. I do not care about age, as levels of maturity vary from individual to individual and maturity is not tied directly to age.
 * about 2000, well-balanced
 * 3 months
 * Please see User:Netoholic/Admins
 * 1,000 total, 250 in talk (300/mo)
 * Three months
 * 1) A thousand edits should be fine. I really look for consistency. 300 edits per month is pretty good for me. 2) A candidate should be involved in at least one article dispute. How he handled the situation should give a good idea on him handling tough situations. 3) A Featured Article should be a bonus. It puts the person through the grind. 4) Barnstars on his page. This is a very good indicator of a possible future admin's worth. This tells us that his work out here is appreciated by members of the community. The barnstar(s) however, should be given by one of the Top 1000 editors to prevent dubious/fake ones.

All those seeking sysop status must have a valid email address. It allows the person who is blocked contact the blocking admin. ! NicholasTurnbull (talk) In general, I do not believe in opposing nominations for good, well meaning editors; thus in circumstances where the candidate is a good faith editor I shall generally abstain from voting rather than vote oppose. In short, since our community is based on trust, I trust good people to make use of adminship well, in the spirit of WP:AGF. ! Neutrality (talk) !Noel ! NoSeptember ! NSLE (T+C) ! Pcb21| Pete ! Pedant ! Pepsidrinka ! Petros471 ! Pgk !  P h a e d r i e l  ! Phroziac !Picaroon9288 ! Primate If user has 500 Great Edits, sure! ! PS2pcGAMER (talk) !Raichu ! Raven4x4x - talk ! Revolución talk ! Richard Cavell talk ! Rje - talk ! RN - talk ! Rob Church - talk ! Robdurbar - talk ! rogerd ! Sarge Baldy - talk !  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) ! Schnee (talk) ! Scimitar parley ! Scott Gall !SCZenz (talk) ! Shreshth91 (talk) ! Simetrical (talk) !Skyler1534 (talk) ! Sam Korn ! Steve block ! Stifle ! SushiGeek (Talk) ! Tachyon01 (talk) ! Tawker (Talk) ! Terence Ong ! Tezeti ! Th e  Halo ! rowspan=2 | Thryduulf All my criteria are subjective guidelines, and may or may not be applied to every candidate. If I cannot recall having had any interaction with them I will not vote. ! Thunderbrand ! themindset !TKD::Talk !Tony Sidaway !Tuspm !Tyrenius !Stephanie Daugherty (Triona)
 * No edit count criterion, although edit history must prove familiarity with Wikipedia.
 * No time criterion
 * My criteria for adminship are the following:
 * First and foremost, the candidate must be a kind, pleasant, trustworthy person of good character, as shown in both actions and in words. This, in my view, is the essential quality of an admin.
 * The user has demonstrated through editing that they know their way around Wikipedia. I do not use edit counting as a means of determining this, only by browsing their edit history.
 * A desire to make Wikipedia a better place, to contribute to the community, and for a peaceful environment for all to work in, is necessary.
 * At least 2000. Prefer good balance of edits in varying namespaces
 * Three weeks
 * Like Jimbo, I feel that adminship should be "no big deal" and that most of our regular contributers should have adminship powers. In addition to the standards that we expect of regular users (civility, etc.) here's what I believe. Unlike others, I feel that lack of a hyperinterest in adminship duties should be no barrier to adminship; if a user chooses to uses their admin powers rarely, all the power to them. Conversely, however, interest in admin duties (mainly RC, SD, deletion pages and NP patrol) is a plus. I prefer bold users, moderate deletionists and people who aren't afraid to block people.
 * Real content contribution is important, not sheer numbers, but I don't think edits should be the most important criteria anyway.
 * 1 month with heavy editing activity, 3 months with light activity
 * What's really important is good judgement - knowing when to act slowly and make sure there is consensus on something - or to be able to judge what will gain consensus support. Experience brings that, but sometimes even people with experience don't get it - and sometimes people with little experience pick it up right away.
 * 1500, but not overwhelmingly in the last month
 * 2 - 3 active months
 * What namespaces you edit in are important, as is the type of admin you will be, not all admins are alike. See my RfA standards, when I vote and list of other admin related pages.
 * 1300 minimum; 30% must have been in Project space; 350 major edits
 * 80 days
 * See here for more.
 * Adminship is no big deal. Just create enough content so that you will have a conscience about deleting other people's. I don't bother with a lot of the rubbish that others demand - please email me if you'd like to me do a quick review of you or your nominees edits and add my support.
 * Adminship is no big deal. Just create enough content so that you will have a conscience about deleting other people's. I don't bother with a lot of the rubbish that others demand - please email me if you'd like to me do a quick review of you or your nominees edits and add my support.
 * Adminship is no big deal. Just create enough content so that you will have a conscience about deleting other people's. I don't bother with a lot of the rubbish that others demand - please email me if you'd like to me do a quick review of you or your nominees edits and add my support.
 * balanced edits in articles and behind-the-scenes - several hundred very good edits at least
 * if you are very good you could be ready in under a month
 * Though I believe adminship should be no big deal, admins should be users who are generally above reproach. I expect admin candidates to do "admin chores", to have a sincerely courteous demeanor, to have and to use good conflict resolution skills, to be familiar with wikipedia policies. It helps if you participate in discussions in wikipedia: namespace.  Good admins are active communicators, so I'd like to see fruitful discussions on Talk pages, including User:Talk pages. Have a specialty or interest area that you focus a substantial portion of edits on, but show an ability to add to a wide range of topics as well. I expect that good admins get 'up to speed' on what is and isn't good for wikipedia very quickly, if after a month you are still behaving boorishly, expect to wait a proportionally longer period before I would support your nomination.  However, if you are not an admin, and you meet my criteria, let me know and I would happily nominate you.
 * 1 edit
 * 1 day
 * If I think you being an admin will do greater good than harm to Wikipedia, I will support. If I never seen you around, I may support pending how others editors that I respect voiced their opinion. Otherwise, I will remain quiet on the nomination. Pepsidrinka 23:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1000/2000, see my criteria
 * Flexible, around 3 months as a guide.
 * You can view my RfA criteria here.
 * Varies
 * Varies
 * The standard will vary depending on the type of editing a user engages in, those doing a lot of RC Patrol etc. I'll expect a lot more of. Those edits which are mainly "pretty" again more of. Timewise I prefer longer rather than shorter realistically I expect 3 months of consistent editing so people can get to know you (plus interaction with others). There's no need to rush into being an Admin, so patience is good, but if you feel you need it sooner rather than later then the answers to the questions should give a good justification for it."Honest" answers fair better than having "issues" uncovered by another editor. Finally edit summaries need to be consistently used.
 * No minimum set, but a reasonable amount of participation is desirable
 * 3 active months
 * Every little bit of cooperation and involvement in the project will be taken in count, no matter its nature - whether RC patrolling and vandal fighting, cleanup tasks, or simply editing. The only absolute need in my book is conduct. Having witnessed one too many Wikistress crises because of behavioural issues, I believe that the only atribute to be demanded in a potential candidate is, in all cases, the ability to communicate and interact with others with respect, civility, and if possible, kindness. Everything else will help me make my decision, but if the nominee has, i.e. acted in a rude and/or disrepectful fashion, filed unnecesary RfCs, used insulting and/or derogatory language against other editors, etc., it will be very hard to sway my vote.
 * Several good edits. Editcountitis should never happen.
 * if you are very good you could be ready around a month
 * I've seen a few people voting oppose or neutral on people who do not meet there excessively high, completely edit count and membership time based, and I have a problem with that. I will not oppose anyone where there is not a GOOD reason to oppose them. A good reason to oppose them is that they have poor behaviour, don't know the rules well, have had a very recent rfc, etc. I don't vote on rfa all that much.
 * Edits > 99
 * Time spent is irrelevant.
 * Civility, balance, and a good mix of exopedianism and metapedianism.
 * ~750 Good Edits
 * N/A
 * Any user that has contributed to the society so much that they are running out of things to do and are ready for some new privelages!
 * 1500+ total, 200+ project, 200+ talk
 * 3+ active months
 * Numbers are preferred minimums. No recent violations of 3RR and instances of incivility, violating NPOV or edit warring. Participation in WP:AfD, WP:CfD, WP:IfD and/or WP:TfD is encouraged.  However, I don't vote just by the number of edits and I would like to see varied participation including a strong history of article edits.  more...
 * 750, 900 for self-noms
 * 9 months
 * Civility, not biased, and hard work, are my main criterion.
 * Enough for me to have an fair idea of your contributions as a user, 1000 is usually enough.
 * Again, long enough for me to have an fair idea of your contributions, and to demonstrate a certain commitment to the project.
 * The question I ask myself is: would making this user an admin benefit the encyclopedia? This of course means they would not abuse their admin powers.
 * 1000+ edits
 * 3 months
 * A commitment to improving articles, solving disputes, basically the best criteria is that they should work to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
 * 100 edits
 * 2 months
 * I do not suffer from editcountitis. I want to see that the candidate works towards a solution to disputes rather than trying to perpetuate them. Lack of civility and assuming bad faith are quite unhelpful, particularly when directed at newbies.
 * No set figure, has to be exceptional for me to support someone with under 1000 though.
 * A very good candidate might be ready in a month, but in most cases 10 weeks is probably more appropriate.
 * The most important criteria for me, however, is whether someone has shown that they can interact with other users in a friendly manner, and have shown that they have a firm grasp of policy. I also have to trust whomever is applying, this is my most important criteria.
 * Don't care
 * Don't care
 * Don't be mean and keep cool... and of course don't be a vandal
 * 250+ (flexible)
 * 2 months (flexible)
 * Please see my criteria for further details.
 * Fairly flexible; the important thing is a regular contribution record; i.e. the user shows that, whatever level they commit at, Wikipedia is not just a fad.
 * As a general rule, regular contributions - as defined above - for at least four months. However, exceptional candidates could ignore this.
 * As a general rule, I'll only vote on contributors that I'm previously aware of. I like to see evidence of other 'janitorial' roles already being undertaken, such as welcoming, RC patrol or activity on articles for deletion. A wide range of contributions is nice, as is an ability to think things through - the worst admins are those who are good contributors who occaisionally make rash decisions that reflect badly on the community.
 * 1000-1500 edits
 * 4 months
 * Should be civil and not participate in any mischief. If you have a failed RfA (I did), do not re-apply for 2-3 months.  Use of edit summaries should be minimum of 90%
 * 0 edits
 * 0 days, but only to registered users
 * I don't agree with the concept of restricting access to admin capabilities, and feel that they should granted immediately to all registered users. I think we should move from a policy of giving power to a few (hopefully) good apples to weeding out the rare bad ones. Often it's impossible to tell who's going to be a bad admin until they're an admin, and by that point you're just stuck with it.
 * 1000 edits
 * 4 months
 * I'll also accept if they have a good edit/day ratio, but no-one under 2 months
 * quality, not quantity
 * don't care
 * You could have 10000 edits after contributing for years and still make a bad admin; and you could have 100 edits after two months and still make a good one. Quantity is not important; quality is.
 * 1000 edits
 * 2+ months
 * Edit count isn't my sole, or most important criteria; I prefer to see editors who are communicative and friendly, and have taken the time to venture into traditional admin areas (AfD, RfA, new page patrol, etc.). If I initially oppose, and am reasoned with in a friendly manner, I'm generally willing to reconsider my vote.
 * At least 500 good edits and no more than 1 bad edit for every 19 good edits (minimum of 95% of edits have good intentions)
 * Two months
 * I expect Wikipedia admins to do admin chores like dealing with vandalism and spam and resolving edit wars, not create problems for their fellow admins (some of the stuff I've seen in articles is not the stuff I want to see on the Wikipedia.) I sometimes go to Special:Recentchanges to detect what goes on on the shady side of Wikipedia, although I'm not a sysop myself (this especially concerns vandals, whether it's a vandalism war [similar to an edit war] or drive-by vandalism.) Jimbo still has powers to remove admins who abuse their powers (eg. get into block wars,) and he has used them.
 * Not fixed, but notes at right unlikely to be met in fewer than 1000-2000 edits.
 * Not fixed, but notes at right unlikely to be met in fewer than 3-5 months.
 * The main thing I look for is a solid track record of good judgement, which is logically equivalent to having not illustrated bad judgement in any significant way. (Old mistakes which are aknowledged as such no longer count, of course.) A clear understanding of policy and (more importantly) the reasons for it in terms of Wikipedia's core values is vital, as is an understanding of the many roles played by admins and willingness to assume them.  There must have been significant time to illustrate good judgement, which translates into a significant number of edits.
 * 2000+ (may vary} - preferably spread over a variety of namespaces, project and talk/user talk are especially important to judge community participation
 * 4 months+ (may vary) - less in the case of an exemplary user
 * Should actively participate in AfD and other discussions. Should be trustworthy, and above all, pleasant. Also, would like to see how he handles crisis situations.
 * Preferably a few hundred.
 * Preferably 2+ months.
 * Time and edit count are only significant, IMO, to show that the candidate isn't likely to do a one-eighty and start abusing his/her powers. I don't care about edit summaries, or about what part(s) of the project you focus on, but incivility will hurt you in my eyes.
 * 500+ Substantive contribs
 * 3+ months
 * I believe that to be an admin, a user should be involved not just with article contributions, but also within the community. If I see very little community contributions (outside of VfD), I will either vote to oppose or stand neutral (depending on the quality of the user). I will also oppose any user with current RfC, RfM or arbitration proceedings underway. Further, if I see any incivility displayed within the past 1/3 of the users time here, I will oppose outright. I don't think everyone should be an administrator even if they are an exceptional contributor. This is where I differ from many.
 * Enough
 * Enough
 * I want to see two things in an admin candidate. 1. They will make use of the tools.  2. They are good-faith.  I don't care if that's 250 edits, although that would probably still be too few.  I don't care about time on WP, although a month would probably be needed.  It is entirely, entirely subjective.  I remember that every admin's action can be undone by another admin, so I am fairly liberal.
 * 12, or thereabouts.
 * At least 33 hours.
 * Adminship is no big deal. If I see good editing, courtesy and a willingness to learn, I'm happy.  More than that, if I can't see a good reaon to oppose, I'll support.
 * At least 2000, with at least 400 in Wikipedia namespace.
 * 2 months (minimum), though I prefer 3-4 months of experience
 * An admin need not be a good editor, they just must be able to apply policies and interact diplomatically with people, and be trusted to use admin tools carefully. I would require somewhat more than the above-mentioned limits in the case of a self-nomination, and I would oppose anybody with a current RFC/RFA/RFM, anybody with little or no AFD participation, and anybody who has been blocked correctly within the past month or two. However, the limits and restrictions are waived if I have previously incorrectly thought that the nominee was already an admin.
 * 800+
 * 9 months or more.
 * My voting might also depend on the number of distinct pages edited. If a user has 1,000 edits on 102 pages, I'll probably vote Oppose.
 * 750+
 * At least 3 months
 * An admin must be of good character, fair, and open minded. Must show maturity, civility and good judgement.  An admin must be involved in AfD discussions, and must be consistenly active against vandalism.  Must be involved in the RC patrol.  Article cleanup and copy editing also a plus.  Must have a user page.
 * > 1 edit
 * > 30 days
 * Normally I support unless I have reasons not to, I like to see a bit of a wide spread of edits, I don't care too much about project, (I only have a few most of my project sutff isn't editing in project namespace), time, well, 30 days is a but low, but I don't mind, I was prompted after 2 months active, so time isn't a big reflection but I need to know who you really "are"
 * 2000 (850 must be in article space, 300 in project space)
 * 3-5 months
 * Good faith editing on the project. Do admin chores such as AFDs, TFDs, MFDs etc., vandalism reverts etc. My standards may differ for every candidate. Civility on the project at all times. Most contributions should accompany with edit summaries. Writes articles regularly for Wikipedia, that's the main purpose of Wikipedia &mdash; an encyclopedia.
 * Multiple contributions which have improved Wikipedia.
 * 2 - 3 months
 * Valuable contributions to Wikipedia, NPOV editing, WikiProject Involvement, No flaming, no vandalism, voting,, ...
 * 1000 +
 * Three months, but depends on their contributions
 * To have made good edits in the main article space, to have shown maturity in talks, and to be committed to the community.
 * Admins: 10
 * long enough for them to feel experienced.
 * rowspan=2 | Must have contributed to article, article talk and wikipedia namespaces, and a significant proportion of their edits should be beneficial to the project. Should not have been invovled in any significant disputes in the last month, and should have learned from any occasions they could have, or feel they could have, conducted themselves better and from any constructive criticism they've been given. They should not be under any editing restrictions or have been recently censured by the arbitration committee.
 * Bureaucrats: 1000
 * Six months since becoming an admin
 * Six months since becoming an admin
 * At least 1500
 * 6 months
 * Good edits, edit summaries, etc. The important stuff really.
 * 1000 main. 200 maintalk. 200 usertalk. 300 project.
 * 6 months
 * Civility, good faith, constructive edits.
 * 150 (preferably 200) to Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk: namespaces, 1000 total
 * 2 months (preferably 3)
 * Must use edit summaries, and must have participated in at least a couple different areas of the Wikipedia: namespace. I often will abstain unless I've seen the candidate around previously.
 * I tend to prefer real editors to aparatchiks, so quite a lot of article edits.
 * Oh long enough for me to have noticed you. I should probably have assumed that you are an admin at least once.
 * Good chap, seems to know what he's doing, doesn't show too much annoyance at idiotic behavior. Persuasive, approachable.  Proper email address, that works (use http://www.bluebottle.com/ which does pop, smtp, imap and webmail and has an excellent spamproofing system).
 * At least 3,000.
 * 5 months at the very least.
 * Must always be acting civil with no warnings and/or blocks. Should also have a good understanding on what an admin does. More detailed information can be found here.
 * 1000, preferably 3000+
 * 2 months, preferably 6 months +
 * Civility, balanced individual, someone who displays maturity and competence in handling wiki procedures in whatever area they work in. Failings can be forgiven if they are learnt from and not perpetuated.
 * Any. Quality matters.
 * Any. Looking for demonstrated commitment to the project, not set time.
 * Ability to work well with others, maturity, and trustworthyness. Demonstated commitment to Wikipedia through time, edits, and quality of contributions. A history of conflicts or abuse will be considered highly unfavorably.

!└ UkPaolo/talk┐ ! ulayiti (talk) !Vilerage ! Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme  ! Voice of All ! Vulcanstar6 !Wezzo (Talk) ! xaosflux  Talk ! Xoloz ! Zahid Abdassabur !Zero ! Zsinj
 * Minimum of 2000, showing a large number of useful contributions to articles
 * Minimum of 6 months (preferably more)
 * Needs to show enough experience, and have built up a good understanding of how things work around here (policies, ettiquette, etc). Would expect to see good contributions to articles, and participation in the WP namespace.
 * Enough good edits. A high edit count tells absolutely nothing of the user in question.
 * At least a month or two, depending on the user.
 * The answers to the questions and the text of the nomination (for self-nominations) count the most for me - they must show how making the user an admin would benefit Wikipedia. Another important thing is how actively the user has been editing on the Wikipedia namespace, as it's a good indication of how familiar they are with policy (which is by far the most important thing for admins to know). But, again, there is no set amount of edits that they should have. If I find a user arrogant or in some other way unfit to be an admin, I will oppose. Editors I've never heard of will have to exceed these standards fairly well to gain my support.
 * 500+
 * 2 months
 * I don't care so much about numbers. Adminship is supposed to be No big deal, and that's what I base most of my voting on. I generally support, if I don't think you'll abuse the tools, and you seem to have a grasp on policy.
 * 400+ Edits
 * 1 Month
 * My biggest portion, though, is Have I seen you around Wikipedia? The other two really don't matter to me that much. I may want to see if you have made 400 edits outside of your RFA and User Page, but other than that, I want to see you actively working and answer the questions well.
 * 2500+ edits
 * Minimum 4 months, preferably more.
 * Some really good candidates have less than 3000, so 2500 is my minimum. The problem with less edits is that while some of the candidates may still be trustable, their knowledge of process is often insuffecient and they are more likely to burn out. I see a lot of new admins that seldomly even use admin functions, and their article edit have gone down as well, so there total activity must be down. Like bureaucrats, to a certain degree, I would like for admins to obtain some level of activity. I do not mind if very established non-en. admins that do most of their work off en. become admins on en. though...as long as they plan to be at least minimaly active and understand en. process.
 * at LEAST 1550, usually 2300+, most often 3000+
 * preferably 6 or more months, but im not strict.
 * must have several good edits, and i prefer that they have helped create one good article. i prefer members of the CVU. and should have a good behaivor record. all are merely preferences.
 * Usually 500+, 300+ considered
 * 2-3 months+
 * Friendly, helpful, amiable and good-natured on Wikipedia, consistently follows Wikipolicy and procedure. 90%+ edit summary usage helps, as does participation in AfD/RfA/Esperanza/WikiProjects etc. Of the 300-500+ edits, at least 10% should be in a talk namespace.
 * 1500+ across namespaces
 * 3 - 4 active months.
 * Must have experience with: Articles, Article Talk, User Talk. Must have participation in WP namespace (e.g. xFD's, RfA's). Should have a Userpage, but must show responsiveness to messages on their own Talk Page. Experience with Templates and Categories is a plus.  Participation in any projects or groups is a plus, but not a requirement.  Must regularly use edit summaries.
 * 700 - 1000, with some participation in Project and Talk.
 * 3 - 5 months.
 * See my user page. I consider a humble and deliberative nature the only absolute necessity in an admin.  Adminship entails a duty to be fair, gentle, and analytically dispassionate.  Adminship is not a "power."  Editors I know to understand this will be supported without regard to other qualifications; those known to contradict this will be opposed, irrespective of other standards.
 * Negotiable.
 * Flexible.
 * Non-negotiable: User page must have been vandalized fifteen times or more.
 * 3000 + (may vary), 9000 + for categorizers (Since they rack up edits so quickly)
 * 9 months or more (preferably a year)
 * I consider hardwork and dedication one of the most important aspects of being an admin. If you are depicting healthy and numerous contibutions, it becomes obvious to me that you genuinely want to improve the project. That said, listening to concensus, parcipation in discussion, and an overall fair and honest demeanor will win me over in no time. It shows that a person will not jump to conclusions without extensive analysis, and I also expect a strong adherence to WP:NPOV. Adherence to policy is also lovely, but I don't expect anyone to be perfect. A few character flaws are what make administrators so varible.
 * See notes
 * Minimum 2-3 months, preferably more.
 * I do not have an edit count requirement because I believe that quality is better than quantity. I do expect all candidates to have experience in several areas such as the Project and article namespaces. I want to see Admin candidates that have a stance against vandalism and firm grip on Wikipedia policies. I will inspect the RFA questions, user talk, contributions, and edit distribution of any potential very carefully. Admins must have a cool head and be able to settle disputes in a calm and effective manner.
 * }