103:
Administrators must demonstrate that they are here to build an encyclopedia. That doesn't mean you have to be the best content creator in the world, but the activities listed above are signs of encyclopedia-building, while there are plenty of other areas that are not. I specifically do not require
95:
Candidate must be of an age of legal responsibility in his or her own jurisdiction. Administrators may be called upon to deal with child pornography, obscenity, libel, legal threats and other material inappropriate for children to deal with. I will never support the exposure of any child to such a
32:
Candidate must have been actively participating for at least six months. You just need that long to get a feel for
Knowledge, really. Experience should be recent enough to be relevant, although breaks are not disqualifiers. There is no firm edit count requirement; candidates who're doing all the
107:
I take a relatively low view of administrator coaching. It seems to be very good at taking marginal candidates through box-checking and how to answer policy questions via rote. Most canned AfD questions are useless, if not outright counterproductive, because they encourage groupthink and enforced
40:
Candidate must demonstrate thoughtful participation in AfD's. Rabid inclusionists or deletionists won't be supported, but a person who takes the time to look for sources and consider the improvement, potential future improvement, and encyclopedic value of a topic before stating their opinion are
36:
Candidate must have a demonstrated pattern of content creation. Usually, that means at least one GA. GAs are not hard to get (although DYKs are too trivial to independently demonstrate content creation) and demonstrate willingness to work with others. Featured content (lists, topics, etc.) is
88:
Candidates with "wants to be an admin someday" userboxes will receive extra levels of scrutiny. Candidates may be opposed solely on the basis of userboxes which call into question whether the candidate is here to build an encyclopedia and/or conduct himself or herself in an appropriately
108:
orthodoxy on the part of admin candidates and RfA voters. I'd much rather see questions asked that challenge candidates to apply conflicting policies and guidelines in hypothetical situations, because how a candidate
92:
Under no circumstances will I support a 4th or subsequent RfA. That demonstrates either a trophy collector (adminiship is not a level-up) or a candidate who has repeatedly failed to judge consensus appropriately.
71:
Anti-vandalism work. Some people don't like Huggle/Twinkle. I'm all in favor of admin candidates having used them and demonstrated their ability to make appropriate judgments.
62:
Candidate must have a demonstrated track record in at least one area which demonstrates that he or she is ready for adminship. These areas include, but are not limited to:
104:
or expect AN/ANI participation, because there are plenty of other good places where experience can be earned while actually contributing to the encyclopedia.
124:
112:(and that they do, in fact, think) is much more important to me than their ability to copy and paraphrase from previous successful RfA's.
68:
is a great place to demonstrate policy understanding and mediation abilities outside of canned AfD questions.
51:. We all get into disputes, and the ability to be in a dispute and make policy-based points rather than
44:
Candidate must have a clean block log for the past year. Forever is better, but we all make mistakes.
100:
The successful
Administrator candidate will already be an administrator before the bit is flipped.
55:
arguments is necessary. (Mind you, pointing out how another editor is violating policy is NOT an
118:
74:
48:
17:
65:
77:
as someone who actually improves articles, rather than partisan keep !voter.
37:
better, and
Featured Articles are best of all. I don't even have one.
33:
things listed below will have made thousands of edits.
85:
Contributions to other
Wikimedia projects are a plus.
27:My Standards for Supporting Adminship Candidates
8:
47:Candidate must have a yearlong history of
80:Dispute resolution like MEDCAB and WQA.
7:
24:
89:professional and neutral manner.
1:
125:User criteria for adminship
96:position of responsibility.
141:
132:
140:
139:
135:
134:
133:
131:
130:
129:
115:
114:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
138:
136:
128:
127:
117:
116:
98:
97:
93:
90:
86:
83:
82:
81:
78:
72:
69:
60:
45:
42:
38:
34:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
137:
126:
123:
122:
120:
113:
111:
105:
101:
94:
91:
87:
84:
79:
76:
73:
70:
67:
64:
63:
61:
58:
54:
50:
46:
43:
39:
35:
31:
30:
26:
19:
18:User:Jclemens
109:
106:
102:
99:
56:
52:
57:ad hominem
53:ad hominem
119:Category
59:attack.)
110:thinks
75:WP:ARS
49:WP:NPA
41:ideal.
66:WP:3O
16:<
121::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.