Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump.

As many listings here are outdated, this list may no longer be an accuracte representation of the likely consensus to be found during future Requests for Adminship.

---

This page is for Wikipedians to disclose their own standards to be met for them to approve of a request on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you are interested in the statistical results as related to such standards, please see Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/Statistics. Note that this page is not official policy on minimum requirements for adminship; it merely sets out the individual opinion of various users. There are currently NO requirements as to the number of edits or length of service required of an editor to become an administrator.

Feel free to add your minimum standards to this table; try to keep the table alphabetized by username. This page is for Wikipedians whose usernames start with the letters A-D; numbers and symbols like "(" should go here too.

Contents 1 Numbers and symbols 2 A 3 B 4 C 5 D

[edit] Numbers and symbols

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes

[edit] A

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes
abakharev	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.
Adambiswanger1	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.
Afonso Silva	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.
AKMask Mask	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.
ALKIVAR™	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.
Anaraug (talk)	More edits than I have.	8+ months	Has to have shown devotion in some way. It would be nice to see that they managed to remain sane and civil during some kind of disagreement.
Andeh	1000+ minimum, enough to suggest sufficient experience	2 months	Things stated at WP:GRFA is what I go by most of the time. Common sense really.
Andrevan (talk)	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.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind	1000 preferred	2-3 months	I try to look at overall character and value to the project instead of "x edits in y namespace" or "z% edit summary usage". I've been an admin for well more than a year, and despite having created 50+ new articles, I still don't have anything even close to 1000 articlespace edits, so I consider such restrictions somewhat unrealistic. It's very unlikely (though not necessarily impossible) that anyone with any history of trolling/sockpuppetry/vandalism would get my vote.
AN (talk)	1,000-2,000+ good article edits	3+ months	an age of at least 18-21+ years
android79	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.
Antandrus (talk)	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.
anthony 警告	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).
Anwar	None	52 weeks since first edit	Must pass the Diablo Test.
Ashibaka	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.
Asbestos	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.
Λυδαcιτγ	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.

[edit] B

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes
BaronLarf	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.
Bart133	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.
Batmanand	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.
blankfaze - (что??)	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.
Blnguyen - (что??)	see notes	see notes	Please see User:Blnguyen/RfA. Thankyou.
BorgHunter (talk)	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.
BrenDJ	1,000 edits on at least 50 pages, and have dedicated themselves to at least five articles.	Six months
BryanG(talk)	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.

[edit] C

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes
Carbonite (talk)	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.
Cecropia	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.
Celestianpower	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.
Computerjoe	N/A	N/A	1. Participation throughout different namespaces; 2. Friendliness and helpfulness; 3. Knowledge and compliance with policy: especially WP:CIVIL; 4. Enough experience with the Wikipedia; 5. Understanding of WP:IAR, and that the Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia over an online community.
Covington	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.
Chris 73	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)
~ crazytales56297 -talk-	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.
Croat Canuck	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.
CryptoDerk	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.
CrazyRussian	thousands	minimum 3 months, more in most cases	I examine contributions for policy knowledge, BITing, civility, and thoughtfulness. I will not support a teenager unless I see specific indications of above-average maturity. I expect high edit counts in WP: and X-talk: spaces. - crz crztalk 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Cyde↔Weys	—	—	Every candidate is a unique person, so I perform a unique analysis on each one.
Cynical (talk)	No set number	No set minimum/3 months+ since previous failed RFA	I don't have any set editcount requirement, but if the user's contribution level was absurdly low (say not even high enough to be eligible to vote in Arbcom/WMF board elections, for example) then I would oppose. I have no set time requirements - a significant level of contribution to the Wikipedia community can outweigh a lack of months/weeks/days/seconds spent gnoming. I would expect decent contributions to Wikipedia_talk and Afd (since anything an admin does will probably involve either one of those) - being a good article editor does not make you a good admin, some level of understanding of how Wikipedia works is needed. Also (until recently this didn't need to be said) I expect a candidate to be human - and I mean that literally. The most important quality for an admin is judgement (indeed, the whole point of RFA is to determine whether the community trusts the candidate's judgement or not), which is something that a bot simply does not have. Bots are therefore by definition unsuitable for adminship. One final note: any contributions which show a tendency towards contempt for community consensus or Wikipedia policy will generally result in opposition.

[edit] D

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes!
DaGizzaChat ©	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.
-- danntm T C	Approximately 1000 total edits in all namespaces.	At least six months since first edit as registered user.	See User:Danntm/RFA for details.
DarthVader	1000+ with at least 100 edits in the WP namespace	None. 2 months is generally enough time in my opinion to be familiar with enough of Wikipedia's policies to be a reasonable admin.	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.
Dbiv	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.
Deathphoenix	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.
Denelson83	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.
dlohcierekim(Talk)(Contribs)	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.
Dmn	2000	6 active months	Must not have a history of vandalism or lying. Must be civil.
Doug Bell	2500 (3000 for self-nom) with at least 1500 in main article space and article talk pages combined (these are guidelines, quality counts more than quanity and 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—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)	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.
Drini	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
¡Dustimagic! (T/C)	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.
Durova	Quality or quantity: WP:GA or WP:FA production, an interesting collection of Did you know? entries, or substantial contribution to a new site guideline would impress me more than 2000 minor edits.	I like to see 6 months. Wouldn't feel comfortable with less than 4.	Play well with others. Don't run with scissors. Seriously, the question I ask is would I want you calling the shots at a dispute where I'm involved? Show me you know the site and its policies, that you would use the tools wisely and that you'd keep cool as a cucumber when a user taunts that your family tree is sixteen other species of vegetable.