User:Pythoncoder/RfA criteria: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Revision as of 03:10, 6 March 2019 edit Pythoncoder (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 26,433 edits fix ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:39, 5 April 2021 edit undo Pythoncoder (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 26,433 edits tabs
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: {{user:pythoncoder/tabs}} {{essay}} Line 9 ⟶ 10: 3. 1 year / 1000 edits (more concrete version of “have a record”) ==RfB== ~~Remember to read the [[Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates]] page.~~ For [[WP:RfB]]s, one additional criterion applies: ~~Update 03:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC): The unthinkable has happened. Someone is [[WP:RFB\|running for bureaucrat]]. Okay, for bureaucrats, there’s one more criterion:~~ 4. Has been a competent admin ==Conclusion== RfA is a ~~terrible~~horrible and broken process because ~~it's~~it’s so hard to pass. Jimbo said "adminship ~~isn't~~is “not a big ~~deal"~~deal”, but RfA has become one. ~~Let's~~Let’s change that. [[Category:User criteria for adminship]]