userpage | talk | dashboard | rfa | contribs | subpages | freqtemps | afd/o | archive |
CLUE + at least 4 months tenure + clean talkpage + communicative + content focused + reasonably clean block log = support
Lack of the majority of the above will put me in neutral, abstention, or if significant, oppose.
The key thing [to becoming an admin/passing RFA] is demonstrating that you understand that knowledge - do you see what I mean? It's like knowing technically how to use the remote control but not understanding the effect of turning the TV on during a funeral. You need to know not only the clear process but more why we have the process - and you need to demonstrate that through your edits.
Potential dislikes, if not balanced out, include:
I generally default to support, we need more admins, and RFA sucks. I would guess that I support around 80-90% of RFAs that I participate in. Every rule has an exception (or three), and every editor is different, with a different learning curve, and a different talent set.
I have officially "retired" from WP:ADCO, as I am no longer "coaching" with the specific intent of helping someone gain adminship. There are good coaches, and good coachees, I'm just no longer one of them.
As a general rule, I will not nominate someone that comes to my talkpage asking me to nominate them, regardless of quality of contribs. I'll find you (or someone else will) eventually, and the best candidates in my experience really are those that are just "going about their business" and are in need of extra tools to "go about their business".
At this time, I am no longer willing to nominate any user, regardless of the merits of there contributions. RfA is brutal, has been for a long time, and despite forewarnings to potential nominees, has served to be a net negative to the Wikipedia project. I will no longer take part in the abuse of good editors.