Though I'm not found at every request for adminship, I occasionally do comment there. As such, I think it's high time I form an RfA criteria.

  1. At least 5 months of active editing - I believe that it takes at least 5 months for a possible candidate to garner the experience required for an administrator. By "active," I mean at least 50 edits per month. I will, however, make exceptions for users who I believe to be of exceptionally high quality – for instance, I nominated Vicenarian (talk · contribs) after he had only been active for three months.
  2. At least 3,000 edits - Yes, I do myself find 3,000 a low number, but I recall a candidate fairly recently being promoted with under 4,000 edits at the time.
  3. No recent blocks - Generally I will consider supporting if the candidate has not been blocked in the past year, though the longer the block log, the more likely I'll oppose instead of supporting.
  4. No recent talk page issues - I will consider opposing if the candidate has had noteworthy issues raised to him/her on his/her talk page within the last six months.

Notes

edit
  • I will generally be found in the "support" section – I offer "moral support" votes to users who are not problematic and act in good faith, however do not quite meet all of my criteria just yet.