It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
This page in a nutshell:An editor requesting the admin tools must demonstrate competence in the areas critical to being an administrator regardless of how outstanding an editor they are.
I have very simple admin criteria that I evaluate in a very complex manner.
I cannot simply disallow or allow my !vote based on strict criteria, so I score people. The scoring process is based on my interpretation of what an admin should be, modified by my assessment of their ability *act* like an admin.
I value XfD and CSD, AN/I, and the user's ability to deal with conflict and to maintain an attractive user page for interaction with people. I don't care about GA/FA/DYK since I'm not nominating the admin to produce articles but to keep idiots away from me so that I can produce articles. I don't particularly care about vandal fighting, since any editor can do that.
The primary criterion, above and beyond all of this of course, is the editor's ability to operate logically, dispassionately, appropriately, and discreetly. This isn't given a point value. It's more of a multiplier.
Participation in the various deletion debates is critical, since admins are the ones most likely to close these debates, and to evaluate the votes therin.
Basic Reqs:
You must be active in XfD. That includes AfD and either CfD, TfD, or IfD. My definition of "active" is that you have participated in at least one AfD discussion every couple of weeks on average, OR if you do a burst of AfD participation of at least 50 or so right before your RfA where your vote equaled the actual outcome fairly often. 20 points.
You must be voting based on policy, not idiot crap like IAR or ILIKEIT or IHATEIT. 15 points.
You must not be an extreme inclusionist OR extreme deletionist. 5 points.
Bonus Points:
+5 points if you have participated in deletewars such as the deletion of Esperanza.
-5 points if you are, for all intents and purposes, indisguishable from Kappa or Improv in terms of how determined you are to include or delete everything.
+10 points if you've done more than one non-admin close.
An editor's ability to correctly identify pages that should be speedily deleted means he or she won't make mistakes when , as an admin, they actually delete them. If you have good judgment in tagging, then your judgment will PROBABLY be good in deleting.
Basic Reqs:
You should not have a history of bad prods or CSD's. 20 points. A bad history -- more than a couple of CSD's or Prods brought up as bad faith and verified as such -- loses all points.
Bonus Points:
+5 points if you regularly source articles instead of CSDing them.
Being able to understand the often drama-laden shitstorms at AN/I will be an important criteria I look at for being an admin. People like Erik the Red, who often participate and provide feedback, are my exemplar for what I'd like to see in non-admin participation in AN/I.
Basic Reqs:
You should have had some activity in AN/I. Some activity can quite literally be only one discussion, as long as you're involved in it for some time, or it can more often be just a few comments here and there. 10 points. No activity, no points.
