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:

• overzealous use of automated tools
• overly focused on removing things from Wikipedia instead of adding things
• overly zealous about adminship itself
• over-contributing to your own RFA (particularly the oppose section)
• combativeness
• legalism
• overly chatty (I know, ironic init?)
• over-barnstarred

• Edit count
• self-noms
• coaching/mentorship
• optional questions (I rarely read them)
• nominator's statement or nominator's status
• gnome v. FA writer (both show content dedication in their own way)
• specialists v. generalists

• Blocked twice (legitimately) for the same thing (evidence of not being able to learn and grow)
• Less than 1000 edits
• Less than 3 months "quality editing"
• This will seem harsh, but it is what it is, and it's my opinion only. I don't expect others to share this opinion. I don't know "for sure" that I haven't voted support in an instance that contradicts this opinion. My opinion: I will oppose any adminship candidacy for an editor, regardless of merit or contributions, that is under age 18. If you are 18, I will look closely, perhaps supporting, perhaps opposing. If you are 17, and I'm aware of it, I will oppose. Keeper ǀ 76 22:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

• User:Tanthalas39 | User:Tanthalas39/AC.
• User:Dihydrogen Monoxide | User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/admin coaching.

• User:Dusti, specifically AFD/deletion discussion improvement, User:Dusti/AFD Coaching.

• User:Pedro/Mentoring

1. User:Alex.muller, passed Feb 2008
2. User:Tanthalas39, failed Mar 2008

   User:Tanthalas39, passed 10Jun2008

3. User:Martijn Hoekstra, passed April 2008
4. User:Jza84, passed 21May08
5. User:Travellingcari (renamed later), passed 22May08
6. User:Malleus Fatuarum, withdrawn by candidate 21May08
7. User:Fritzpoll, passed 27May08
8. User:Ddstretch, passed 6Jun08
9. User:Cenarium, passed 19Jun08
10. User:Finalnight, withdrawn by candidate 17Jul08
11. User:Gwynand, withdrawn by candidate 18Jul08

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.