User:TedE/Administrator standards

The following is an (unordered) list of personal criteria for voting for Administrators.

Essential (E-)

These characteristics are an essential part of being an administrator. Any problems with these criteria is an automatic vote against the nominated administrator.

1. Demonstrated overall civility
2. At least 200
   WP:AfD
   edits, of which a significant number must demonstrate research of topic (not, "per nom")
3. Have steered an article through a significant peer review. The candidate must have significant responses on the peer review page.
4. Have at least 4,000 edits, of which at least 25% are in the article name space
5. Have at least 8% of the number of edits in the article name space

Nearly required (N-)

These characteristics are nearly required. They cut to the core of what an adminstrator does. A candidate who is lacking one is not automatically rejected, but it is a strong indication they may not be right for the job.

1. Have at least 8% of the number of edits in the article name space. This indicates cooperation in the creation of articles.
2. Have created at least 3 articles that are no longer stubs.
3. At least 30 votes in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship involving significant research.
4. Have steered an article through FAC voting (bonus for success, but not required).
5. Have created and used a new editor welcome message.
6. Have edited Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism at least 30 times, otherwise they simply don't need the tools.

Advantageous (A-)

Having advantageous characteristics will add to the overall impression of the candidate. Lacking them will detract. The accumulation of several can sway the vote.

1. Demonstrated civility under pressure. This is an essential trait, but hard to find. Some editors may not have much pressure. I also understand that we all make mistakes and may fly off the handle at times.
2. Edit summaries should normally be >90%, however summaries in talk can be relaxed.
3. Edit summaries should be relevant and informative.
4. Points off for calling content modifications "reverts"
5. Demonstration of helping new editors