Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/P-S

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As many listings here are outdated, this list may no longer be an accuracte representation of the likely consensus to be found during future Requests for Adminship.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

Contents 1 P 2 Q 3 R 4 S

[edit] P

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes
Pcb21| Pete	-	-	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.
Pedant	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.
Pepsidrinka	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)
Petros471	1000/2000, see my criteria	Flexible, around 3 months as a guide.	You can view my RfA criteria here.
Phil Sandifer	A decent number	A while	I expect admins to demonstrate the common sense and good judgment to have not read this idiotic page.
Pgk	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.
Phaedriel	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.
Phroziac	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.
Primate	~750 Good Edits If user has 500 Great Edits, sure!	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!
ProhibitOnions	Around 3000 edits, including creation or significant improvement of several articles. Stub sorting and AfD votes by themselves won't cut it, though there should be a balance showing significant contribution to various areas in Wikipedia.	Usually at least 9 months.	Good nature, active friendliness, and level-headedness go a long way. Should be a good editor, above all. User must have a good userpage. Arrogance, incivility, religious or nationalistic POV-pushing (including subtle changes), original research, and failure to use edit summaries are bad. I oppose adminship for those under 18 years of age.
PS2pcGAMER (talk)	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...

[edit] Q

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

[edit] R

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes
Raichu	750, 900 for self-noms	9 months	Civility, not biased, and hard work, are my main criterion.
Raven4x4x - talk	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.
Republitarian	50,000		If the user in question has not met the 50,000 edit count requirement, at least one demonstration of not being completely worthless will suffice.
Revolución talk	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.
Richard Cavell talk	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.
Rje - talk	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.
RN - talk	Don't care	Don't care	Don't be mean and keep cool... and of course don't be a vandal
Rob Church - talk	250+ (flexible)	2 months (flexible)	Please see my criteria for further details.
Robdurbar - talk	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.
rogerd	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%
Roninbk	Variable. Try not to dominate in one particular namespace though, spread yourself out	3 months	Please see my User:Roninbk/RfA page
Royalguard11	A sizable amount (1000 is a good start)	4-6 months of good activity	See my full standards here
RyanGerbil10	Precisely 2,236 or more	Enough time to have made that many edits	Basically, you have to be better than me when I ran for RFA.

[edit] S

User	Edit count standards, if any	Time standards, if any	Other notes
Sarge Baldy - talk	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.
Sceptre (Talk)	1000 edits	4 months	I'll also accept if they have a good edit/day ratio, but no-one under 2 months
Schnee (talk)	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.
Scimitar parley	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.
Scott Gall	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.
SCZenz (talk)	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.
Shreshth91 (talk)	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.
Simetrical (talk)	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.
Skyler1534 (talk)	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.
Sam Korn	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.
Steve block	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.
Stifle	At least 1000 in article namespace, with at least 400 in Wikipedia namespace.	2 months will do.	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.
SushiGeek (Talk)	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.