Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship
 | This is an essay. 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: This essay summarizes what policy already says about what the community expects from an administrator. Its purpose is to allow people to better make policy based arguments at WP:RfA. |
While Wikipedia's system for selecting administrator gives a wide level of discretion for the reasons you can use to support or oppose a candidate, RfA is not a vote and the outcome is determined through consensus. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. By basing your opinion on policy your opinion will be given more weight in a close debate.
Policy has a lot to say about what is expected from an administrator. If you want to make policy based arguments in RfA then consider than policy says that admins are expected to:
- Generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for at least several months
- Be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia
- Respect and understand Wikipedia's policies
- Have gained the general trust of the community
- Only use alternative accounts for legitimate purposes
- Exercise care in using these new functions
- Follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities
- Be accountable to the community
- Maintain the security of their account
- Know how not to make an administrative decision when involved
- Lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others
- Strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.
A good reason to support a candidate would be if they have demonstrated the skills and temperament to abide by these expectations. A strong policy based reason to oppose may be if you have an example showing for example that they regularly fail to act in a respectful, civil manner, or that you have not have evidence that they have the skill or experience to use the tools for the purposes they have requested.
Arguments that do not directly relate to policy may ultimately be discounted by the bureaucrats closing the debate. These can include:
- Personal dislike of the candidate
- Information that is incomplete or lacking context (e.g.: saying the candidate had a dispute about them raised at WP:ANI without saying what the debate or result was)
- Skills that are not typically part of an administrator's toolkit (e.g.: programming language skills) or that the candidate does not intend to work in