User:Dureo/rfa

• I very rarely miss a RFA(generally only in the event it is WP:Snow closed while I am asleep/offline) unless I am actually on a dated Wikibreak.
• When I review a candidate for RFA I generally go back through 3000 contributions, if the candidate is a slower contributor, that may be 6+ months, if that editor is a faster contributor that may be less than a month.
• I will generally go back through talk page archives for a year(or less if that is as far as the archives go for newer editors) and see how the candidate handles disputes and past problems, if the candidate cannot communicate well, how can they expect to be an admin, communication is key to me.

Below I have stated my standards for voting in Requests for adminship.

Requirements

Only under rare conditions will I give a support vote to a user who does not meet all of the following:

1. Article writing in and of itself isn't very important to me
2. that said, I do think the candidate should be able to write well, be concise, and express themselves well/without feelings of rancor or ill-will
3. 3 months of experience
4. No block history (except in cases of error)
5. No post-first-day vandalism (newbies often make mistakes)
6. No edit warring
7. Acting civil at all times is very important to me
8. no past problems with WP:AGF
9. Decent spelling/grammar

Bonuses

To outweigh the negatives

1. Vandal fighting
2. New pages patrolling
3. Welcoming committee
4. Voting in AFD's
5. Good answers to RfA questions
6. Helped to develop a featured article (note that this is not a requirement!)
7. Member of at least one WikiProject

Negatives

Any of these could earn a neutral or oppose if not outweighed by bonuses

1. Not a member of at least one WikiProject
2. Limited range of articles edited
3. Poor answers to RfA questions
4. Does not understand what an admin really does
5. Controversial userpage